[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67816-68082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27981]
[[Page 67815]]
Vol. 83
Monday,
No. 249
December 31, 2018
Part II
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
42 CFR Part 425
Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable Care
Organizations--Pathways to Success and Extreme and Uncontrollable
Circumstances Policies for Performance Year 2017; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 249 / Monday, December 31, 2018 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 67816]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
42 CFR Part 425
[CMS-1701-F2 and CMS-1702-F]
RINs 0938-AT45 and 0938-AT51
Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable
Care Organizations--Pathways to Success and Extreme and Uncontrollable
Circumstances Policies for Performance Year 2017
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings
Program), providers of services and suppliers that participate in an
Accountable Care Organization (ACO) continue to receive traditional
Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) payments under Parts A and B, but the
ACO may be eligible to receive a shared savings payment if it meets
specified quality and savings requirements. The policies included in
this final rule provide a new direction for the Shared Savings Program
by establishing pathways to success through redesigning the
participation options available under the program to encourage ACOs to
transition to two-sided models (in which they may share in savings and
are accountable for repaying shared losses). These policies are
designed to increase savings for the Trust Funds and mitigate losses,
reduce gaming opportunities, and promote regulatory flexibility and
free-market principles. This final rule also provides new tools to
support coordination of care across settings and strengthen beneficiary
engagement; and ensure rigorous benchmarking.
In this final rule, we also respond to public comments we received
on the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies for the Shared
Savings Program that were used to assess the quality and financial
performance of ACOs that were subject to extreme and uncontrollable
events, such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and the California
wildfires, in performance year 2017, including the applicable quality
data reporting period for performance year 2017.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective February 14, 2019.
Applicability Dates: In the Supplementary Information section of
this final rule, we provide a table (Table 1) which lists key changes
in this final rule that have an applicability date other than the
effective date of this final rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth November, (410) 786-8084 or
via email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table 1 lists key changes that have an
applicability date other than 60 days after the date of publication of
this final rule. By indicating that a provision is applicable to a
performance year (PY) or agreement period, activities related to
implementation of the policy may precede the start of the performance
year or agreement period.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 67817]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.000
[[Page 67818]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.001
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary and Background
A. Executive Summary
1. Purpose
2. Summary of the Major Provisions
3. Summary of Costs and Benefits
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
II. Provisions of the August 2018 Proposed Rule and Analysis of and
Responses to Public Comments
A. Redesigning Participation Options To Facilitate Transition to
Performance-Based Risk
1. Background on Shared Savings Program Participation Options
2. Modified Participation Options Under 5-Year Agreement Periods
3. Creating a BASIC Track With Glide Path to Performance-Based
Risk
4. Permitting Annual Participation Elections
5. Determining Participation Options Based on Medicare FFS
Revenue and Prior Participation
6. Requirements for ACO Participation in Two-Sided Models
7. Participation Options for Agreement Periods Beginning in 2019
B. Fee-for-Service Benefit Enhancements
1. Background
2. Proposed Revisions
C. Providing Tools To Strengthen Beneficiary Engagement
1. Background on Beneficiary Engagement
2. Beneficiary Incentives
3. Empowering Beneficiary Choice
D. Benchmarking Methodology Refinements
1. Background
2. Risk Adjustment Methodology for Adjusting Historical
Benchmark Each Performance Year
3. Use of Regional Factors When Establishing and Resetting ACOs'
Benchmarks
4. Technical Changes To Incorporate References to Benchmark
Rebasing Policies
E. Updating Program Policies
1. Overview
2. Coordination of Pharmacy Care for ACO Beneficiaries
F. Applicability of Final Policies to Track 1+ Model ACOs
1. Background
2. Unavailability of Application Cycles for Entry Into the Track
1+ Model in 2019 and 2020
3. Applicability of Final Policies to Track 1+ Model ACOs
Through Revised Program Regulations or Revisions to Track 1+ Model
Participation Agreements
III. Provisions of the December 2017 Interim Final Rule With Comment
Period and Analysis of and Response to Public Comments
A. Background
[[Page 67819]]
B. Shared Savings Program Extreme and Uncontrollable
Circumstances Policies for Performance Year 2017
1. Determination of Quality Performance Scores for ACOs in
Affected Areas
2. Mitigating Shared Losses for ACOs Participating in a
Performance-Based Risk Track
IV. Collection of Information Requirements
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Statement of Need
B. Overall Impact
1. Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program;
Accountable Care Organizations--Pathways to Success (CMS-1701-F2)
2. Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program;
Accountable Care Organizations--Extreme and Uncontrollable
Circumstances Policies (CMS-1701-F)
C. Anticipated Effects
1. Effects on the Medicare Program
2. Effects on Beneficiaries
3. Effects on Providers and Suppliers
4. Effect on Small Entities
5. Effect on Small Rural Hospitals
6. Unfunded Mandates
7. Regulatory Review Cost Estimation
8. Other Impacts on Regulatory Burden
D. Alternatives Considered
E. Compliance With Requirements of Section 1899(i)(3)(B) of the
Act
F. Accounting Statement and Table
G. Regulatory Reform Analysis Under Executive Order 13771
H. Conclusion
VI. Effective Date Exception
Regulation Text
I. Executive Summary and Background
A. Executive Summary
1. Purpose
In August 2018 we issued a proposed rule, titled ``Medicare
Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable Care
Organizations--Pathways to Success'' (hereinafter referred to as the
``August 2018 proposed rule''), which appeared in the Federal Register
on August 17, 2018 (83 FR 41786). On November 1, 2018, we issued a
final rule, titled ``Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies
Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY
2019; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; Quality Payment
Program; Medicaid Promoting Interoperability Program; Quality Payment
Program--Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstance Policy for the 2019
MIPS Payment Year; Provisions From the Medicare Shared Savings
Program--Accountable Care Organizations--Pathways to Success; and
Expanding the Use of Telehealth Services for the Treatment of Opioid
Use Disorder Under the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention That Promotes
Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities
Act'' (hereinafter referred to as the ``November 2018 final rule''),
that appeared in the Federal Register on November 23, 2018 (83 FR
59452). In the November 2018 final rule, we finalized certain policies
from the August 2018 proposed rule in order to ensure continuity of
participation, and finalize time-sensitive program policy changes for
currently participating ACOs. We also finalized provisions to
streamline the ACO core quality measure set to reduce burden and
encourage better outcomes, which we proposed in the proposed rule for
the CY 2019 PFS, entitled Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment
Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B
for CY 2019; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; Quality
Payment Program; and Medicaid Promoting Interoperability Program;
Proposed Rule (83 FR 35704). This final rule addresses the remaining
policies from the August 2018 proposed rule that were not addressed in
the November 2018 final rule.
Since the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings Program)
was established in 2012, CMS has continued to monitor and evaluate
program results to look for additional ways to streamline program
operations, reduce burden, and facilitate transition to risk that
promote a competitive and accountable marketplace, while improving the
quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries. This final rule makes
changes to the regulations for the Shared Savings Program that were
promulgated through rulemaking between 2011 and 2017, and are codified
in 42 CFR part 425. The changes in this final rule are based on the
additional program experience we have gained and on lessons learned
from testing of Medicare ACO initiatives by the Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center). As we implement these changes,
we will continue to monitor the program's ability to reduce healthcare
spending and improve care quality, including whether the program
provides beneficiaries with the value and choice demonstrated by other
Medicare options such as Medicare Advantage (MA), and will use the
results of this monitoring to inform future development of the program.
This rule also finalizes changes to address new requirements of the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-123) (herein referred to as
the Bipartisan Budget Act).
In December 2017, we issued an interim final rule with comment
period, titled ``Medicare Shared Savings Program: Extreme and
Uncontrollable Circumstances Policies for Performance Year 2017''
(hereinafter referred to as the ``December 2017 interim final rule with
comment period''), which appeared in the Federal Register on December
26, 2017 (82 FR 60912). The December 2017 interim final rule with
comment period established policies for assessing the financial and
quality performance of Shared Savings Program ACOs that were affected
by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances during performance year
2017, including the applicable quality reporting period for performance
year 2017. This final rule includes an analysis of and responses to
comments received on the December 2017 interim final rule with comment
period.
Section 1899 of the Social Security Act (the Act) established the
Medicare Shared Savings Program, which promotes accountability for a
patient population, fosters coordination of items and services under
Medicare Parts A and B, encourages investment in infrastructure and
redesigned care processes for high quality and efficient health care
service delivery, and promotes higher value care. The Shared Savings
Program is a voluntary program that encourages groups of doctors,
hospitals, and other health care providers to come together as an ACO
to lower growth in expenditures and improve quality. An ACO agrees to
be held accountable for the quality, cost, and experience of care of an
assigned Medicare FFS beneficiary population. ACOs that successfully
meet quality and savings requirements share a percentage of the
achieved savings with Medicare.
Shared Savings Program ACOs are an important innovation for moving
CMS' payment systems away from paying for volume and towards paying for
value and outcomes because ACOs are held accountable for spending in
relation to a historical benchmark and for quality performance,
including performance on outcome and patient experience measures. The
program began in 2012, and as of January 2018, 561 ACOs were
participating in the program and serving over 10.5 million Medicare FFS
beneficiaries. (See the Medicare Shared Savings Program website at
https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/ for information about the program, the program's
statutory authority, regulations and guidance, the program's
application process, participating ACOs, and program performance data.)
The Shared Savings Program currently includes three financial
models that allow ACOs to select an
[[Page 67820]]
arrangement that makes the most sense for their organization. The vast
majority of Shared Savings Program ACOs, 82 percent in 2018,\1\ have
chosen to enter and maximize the allowed time under a one-sided, shared
savings-only model (Track 1), under which eligible ACOs receive a share
of any savings under their benchmark, but are not required to pay back
a share of spending over the benchmark. In comparison, there is
relatively low participation in the program's two-sided, shared savings
and shared losses models, under which eligible ACOs share in a larger
portion of any savings under their benchmark, but are required to share
losses if spending exceeds the benchmark. Participation in Track 2
(introduced at the start of the program in 2012) has slowly declined in
recent years, particularly following the availability of Track 3
(beginning in 2016), although participation in Track 3, the program's
highest-risk track, remains modest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, for example, Medicare Shared Savings Program Fast Facts
(January 2018), available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/SSP-2018-Fast-Facts.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the Innovation Center designed an additional option
available to eligible Track 1 ACOs, referred to as the Track 1+ Model,
to facilitate ACOs' transition to performance-based risk. The Track 1+
Model is a time-limited model that began on January 1, 2018, and is
based on Shared Savings Program Track 1, but tests a payment design
that incorporates more limited downside risk, as compared to Track 2
and Track 3. Our early experience with the design of the Track 1+ Model
demonstrates that the availability of a lower-risk, two-sided model is
an effective way to encourage Track 1 ACOs (including ACOs within a
current agreement period, initial program entrants, and renewing ACOs)
to progress more rapidly to performance-based risk. Fifty-five ACOs
entered into Track 1+ Model agreements effective on January 1, 2018,
the first time the model was offered. These ACOs represent our largest
cohort of performance-based risk ACOs to date.
ACOs in two-sided models have shown significant savings to the
Medicare program while advancing the quality of care furnished to FFS
beneficiaries; but, the majority of ACOs have yet to assume any
performance-based risk although they have the ability to benefit from
waivers of certain federal requirements in connection with their
participation in the Shared Savings Program. Even more concerning is
the finding that for performance years beginning in 2012 through 2016,
one-sided model ACOs, which are not accountable for sharing in losses,
actually increased Medicare spending relative to their benchmarks under
the program's financial methodology. Further, the presence of an
``upside-only'' track may be encouraging consolidation in the
marketplace, reducing competition and choice for Medicare FFS
beneficiaries. While we understand that systems need time to adjust,
Medicare cannot afford to continue with models that are not producing
desired results.
Our results to date have shown that ACOs in two-sided models
perform better over time than one-sided model ACOs, low revenue ACOs,
which are typically physician-led, perform better than high revenue
ACOs, which often include hospitals, and the longer ACOs are in the
program the better they do at achieving the program goals of lowering
growth in expenditures and improving quality. For example, in
performance year 2016, about 68 percent of Shared Savings Program ACOs
in two-sided models (15 of 22 ACOs) shared savings compared to 29
percent of Track 1 ACOs; 41 percent of low revenue ACOs shared savings
compared to 23 percent of high revenue ACOs; and 42 percent of April
and July 2012 starters shared savings, compared to 36 percent of 2013
and 2014 starters, 26 percent of 2015 starters, and 18 percent of 2016
starters. Shortly after the August 2018 proposed rule was announced,
CMS made publicly available performance year 2017 results that showed
similarities to 2016. In performance year 2017, 51 percent of Shared
Savings Program ACOs in two-sided models (20 of 39 ACOs) shared savings
compared to 33 percent of Track 1 ACOs; 44 percent of low revenue ACOs
shared savings compared to 28 percent of high revenue ACOs; and 51
percent of April and July 2012 starters shared savings, compared to 43
percent of 2013 and 2014 starters, 28 percent of 2015 and 2016
starters, and 21 percent of 2017 starters.
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we explained our belief that
additional policy changes to the Shared Savings Program and its
financial models are required to support the move to value, achieve
savings for the Medicare program, and promote a competitive and
accountable healthcare marketplace. Accordingly, we proposed to
redesign the Shared Savings Program to provide pathways to success in
the future through a combination of policy changes, informed by the
following guiding principles:
Accountability--Increase savings for the Medicare Trust
Funds, mitigate losses by accelerating the move to two-sided risk by
ACOs, and ensure rigorous benchmarking.
Competition--Promote free-market principles by
encouraging the development of physician-only and rural ACOs in
order to provide a pathway for physicians to stay independent,
thereby preserving beneficiary choice.
Engagement--Promote regulatory flexibility to allow
ACOs to innovate and be successful in coordinating care, improving
quality, and engaging with and incentivizing beneficiaries to
achieve and maintain good health.
Integrity--Reduce opportunities for gaming.
Quality--Improve quality of care for patients with an
emphasis on promoting interoperability and the sharing of healthcare
data between providers, focusing on meaningful quality measures, and
combatting opioid addiction.
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we explained that the need for a
new approach or pathway to transition Track 1 ACOs to performance-based
risk is particularly relevant at this time, given the current stage of
participation for the initial entrants to the Shared Savings Program
under the program's current design. The program's initial entrants are
nearing the end of the time allowed under Track 1 (a maximum of two, 3-
year agreement periods). Among the program's initial entrants (ACOs
that first entered the program in 2012 and 2013), there are 82 ACOs
that would be required to renew their participation agreements to enter
a third agreement period beginning in 2019, and they face transitioning
from a one-sided model to a two-sided model with significant levels of
risk that some are not prepared to accept. Another 114 ACOs that have
renewed for a second agreement period under a one-sided model,
including 59 ACOs that started in 2014 and 55 ACOs that started in
2015, will face a similar transition to a two-sided model with
significant levels of risk in 2020 and 2021, respectively. The
transition to performance-based risk remains a pressing concern for
ACOs, as evidenced by a recent survey of the 82 ACOs that would be
required to move to a two-sided payment model in their third agreement
period beginning in 2019. The survey results, based on a 43 percent
response rate, indicate that these Track 1 ACOs are reluctant to move
to two-sided risk under the current design of the program. See National
Association of ACOs, Press Release (May 2018), available at https://www.naacos.com/press-release-may-2-2018.
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we explained our belief that the
long term success and sustainability of the Shared Savings Program is
affected by a combination of key program factors: The savings and
losses potential of the
[[Page 67821]]
program established through the design of the program's tracks; the
methodology for setting and resetting the benchmark, which is the basis
for determining shared savings and shared losses; the length of the
agreement period, which determines the amount of time an ACO remains
under a financial model; and the frequency of benchmark rebasing. In
the proposed rule, we carefully considered each of these factors and
proposed a framework that we believed, on balance, would create
sufficient incentives for participation in a voluntary program, while
also achieving program goals to increase quality of care for Medicare
beneficiaries and reduce expenditure growth to protect the Trust Funds.
In order to achieve these program goals and preserve the long term
success and sustainability of the program, we explained the need to
create a pathway for ACOs to more rapidly transition to performance-
based risk. ACOs and other program stakeholders have urged CMS to
smooth the transition to risk by providing more time to gain experience
with risk and more incremental levels of risk. Through the proposed
program redesign, we aimed to create a pathway for success that
facilitates ACOs' transition to performance-based risk more quickly and
makes this transition smooth by phasing-in risk more gradually. Through
the creation of a new BASIC track, we proposed to allow ACOs to gain
experience with more modest levels of performance-based risk on their
way to accepting greater levels of performance-based risk over time (as
the proposed BASIC track's maximum level of risk is similar to that of
the Track 1+ Model, and substantially less than the proposed ENHANCED
track). As stakeholders have suggested, we proposed to provide
flexibility to allow ACOs that are ready to accelerate their move to
higher risk within agreement periods, and enable such ACOs to
participate in Advanced APMs for purposes of the Quality Payment
Program. We proposed to streamline the program and simplify the
participation options by retiring Track 1 and Track 2. We proposed to
retain Track 3, which we would rename as the ENHANCED track, to
encourage ACOs that are able to accept higher levels of potential risk
and reward to drive the most significant systematic change in
providers' and suppliers' behavior. We proposed to further strengthen
the program by establishing policies to deter gaming by limiting more
experienced ACOs to higher-risk participation options; more rigorously
screening for good standing among ACOs seeking to renew their
participation in the program or re-enter the program after termination
or expiration of their previous agreement; identifying ACOs re-forming
under new legal entities as re-entering ACOs if greater than 50 percent
of their ACO participants have recent prior participation in the same
ACO in order to hold these ACOs accountable for their ACO participants'
experience with the program; and holding ACOs in two-sided models
accountable for partial-year losses if either the ACO or CMS terminates
the agreement before the end of the performance year.
Under the proposed redesign of the program, our policies would
recognize the relationship between the ACO's degree of control over
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for its assigned
beneficiaries and its readiness to accept higher or lower degrees of
performance-based risk. Comparisons of ACO participants' total Medicare
Parts A and B FFS revenue to a factor based on total Medicare Parts A
and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries would be
used in determining the maximum amount of losses (loss sharing limit)
under the BASIC track, the estimated amount of repayment mechanism
arrangements for BASIC track ACOs (required for ACOs entering or
continuing their participation in a two-sided model to assure CMS of
the ACO's ability to repay shared losses), and in determining
participation options for ACOs. Using revenue-based loss sharing limits
and repayment mechanism amounts for eligible BASIC track ACOs would
help to ensure that low revenue ACOs have a meaningful pathway to
participate in a two-sided model that may be more consistent with their
capacity to assume risk. By basing participation options on the ACO's
degree of control over total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures
for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries, low revenue ACOs, which tend to
be smaller and have less capital, would be able to continue in the
program longer under lower levels of risk; whereas high revenue ACOs,
which tend to include institutional providers and are typically larger
and better capitalized, would be required to move more quickly to
higher levels of performance-based risk in the ENHANCED track, because
they should be able to exert more influence, direction, and
coordination over the full continuum of care. By requiring high revenue
ACOs to enter higher levels of performance-based risk under the
ENHANCED track after no more than one agreement period under the BASIC
track, we aimed to drive more meaningful systematic change in these
ACOs, which have greater potential to control their assigned
beneficiaries' Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures by coordinating
care across care settings, and thus to achieve significant change in
spending. Further, allowing low revenue ACOs a longer period of
participation under the lower level of performance-based risk in the
BASIC track, while challenging high revenue ACOs to more quickly move
to higher levels of performance-based risk, could give rise to more
innovative arrangements for lowering growth in expenditures and
improving quality, particularly among low revenue ACOs that tend to be
composed of independent physician practices.
The program's benchmarking methodology, a complex calculation that
incorporates the ACO's risk-adjusted historical expenditures and
reflects either national or regional spending trends, is a central
feature of the program's financial models. We proposed to continue to
refine the benchmarking approach based on our experience using factors
based on regional FFS expenditures in resetting the benchmark in an
ACO's second or subsequent agreement period, and to address ACOs'
persistent concerns over the risk adjustment methodology. Through the
proposed redesign of the program, we would provide for more accurate
benchmarks for ACOs that are protective of the Trust Funds by ensuring
that ACOs do not unduly benefit from any one aspect of the benchmark
calculations, while also helping to ensure the program continues to
remain attractive to ACOs, especially those caring for the most complex
and highest risk patients who could benefit from high-quality,
coordinated care from an ACO.
We proposed to accelerate the use of factors based on regional FFS
expenditures in establishing the benchmark by applying this methodology
in setting an ACO's benchmark beginning with its first agreement
period. This would allow the benchmark to be a more accurate
representation of the ACO's costs in relation to its localized market
(or regional service area), and could strengthen the incentives of the
program to drive meaningful change by ACOs. Further, allowing agreement
periods of at least 5 years, as opposed to the current 3-year agreement
periods, would provide greater predictability for benchmarks by
reducing the frequency of benchmark rebasing, and therefore provide
greater opportunity for ACOs to achieve savings against these
benchmarks. In combination, these
[[Page 67822]]
policies would protect the Trust Funds, provide more accurate and
predictable benchmarks, and reduce selection costs, while creating
incentives for ACOs to transition to performance-based risk.
The existing regional adjustment under Sec. 425.603(c) can provide
overly inflated benchmarks for ACOs that are relatively low spending
compared to their region, while ACOs with higher spending compared to
their region may find little value in remaining in the program when
faced with a significantly reduced benchmark. To address this dynamic,
we proposed to reduce the maximum weight used in calculating the
regional adjustment, and cap the adjustment amount for all agreement
periods, so as not to excessively reward or punish an ACO based on
where the ACO is located. This would make the benchmark more achievable
for ACOs that care for medically complex patients and are high spending
compared to their region, thereby encouraging their continued
participation, while at the same time preventing windfall shared
savings payments for ACOs that have relatively low spending levels
relative to their region.
We also sought to provide more sustainable trend factors for ACOs
with high penetration in markets with lower spending growth compared to
the nation, and less favorable trend factors for ACOs with high
penetration in markets with higher spending growth compared to the
nation. This approach would have little impact on ACOs with relatively
low to medium penetration in counties in their regional service area.
ACOs and other program stakeholders have continued to express
concerns that the program's methodology for risk adjusting the
benchmark for each performance year does not adequately account for
changes in acuity and health status of patients over time. We proposed
to modify the current approach to risk adjustment to allow changes in
health status to be more fully recognized during the agreement period,
providing further incentives for continued participation by ACOs faced
with higher spending due to the changing health status of their
population.
ACOs and other program stakeholders have urged CMS to allow
additional flexibility of program and payment policies to enable ACOs
to engage beneficiaries and provide the care for beneficiaries in the
most appropriate care setting. It is also critical that patients have
the tools to be more engaged with their doctors in order to play a more
active role in their care coordination and the quality of care they
receive, and that ACOs empower and incentivize beneficiaries to achieve
good health. The Bipartisan Budget Act allows for certain new
flexibilities for Shared Savings Program ACOs to support these aims,
including new beneficiary incentive programs, telehealth services
furnished in accordance with section 1899(l) of the Act, and a choice
of beneficiary assignment methodology. We proposed to establish
policies in accordance with the new law in these areas. For example, in
accordance with section 1899(m)(1)(A) of the Act (as added by section
50341 of the Bipartisan Budget Act), we would allow certain ACOs under
two-sided risk to establish CMS-approved beneficiary incentive
programs, through which an ACO would provide incentive payments to
assigned beneficiaries who receive qualifying primary care services. We
proposed to establish policies to govern telehealth services furnished
in accordance with 1899(l) of the Act by physicians and practitioners
in eligible two-sided model ACOs. We also proposed to allow broader
access to the program's existing SNF 3-day rule waiver for ACOs under
performance-based risk.
Lastly, we sought comment on how Medicare ACOs and the sponsors of
stand-alone Part D prescription drug plans (PDPs) could be encouraged
to collaborate in order to improve the coordination of pharmacy care
for Medicare FFS beneficiaries.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions
This final rule restructures the participation options for ACOs
applying to participate in the program in 2019 by discontinuing Track 1
(one-sided shared savings-only model), and Track 2 (two-sided shared
savings and shared losses model) while maintaining Track 3 (renamed the
ENHANCED track) and offering a new BASIC track. Under the approach we
are adopting in this final rule, the program's two tracks are: (1) A
BASIC track, offering a glide path from a one-sided model for eligible
ACOs to progressively higher increments of risk and potential reward
within a single agreement period; and (2) an ENHANCED track based on
the existing Track 3 (two-sided model), for ACOs that take on the
highest level of risk and potential reward. As part of this approach we
are replacing the current 3-year agreement period structure with an
agreement period of at least 5 years, allowing eligible BASIC track
ACOs greater flexibility to select their level of risk within an
agreement period in the glide path, and allowing all BASIC track and
ENHANCED track ACOs the flexibility to change their selection of
beneficiary assignment methodology prior to the start of each
performance year, consistent with the requirement under the Bipartisan
Budget Act to provide ACOs with a choice of prospective assignment. We
are finalizing Level A and B of the BASIC track as one-sided models
with a maximum shared savings rate of 40 percent, not to exceed 10
percent of updated benchmark; Level C of the BASIC track with a maximum
shared savings rate of 50 percent not to exceed 10 percent of updated
benchmark, and loss sharing rate of 30 percent, not to exceed 2 percent
of ACO participant revenue capped at 1 percent of updated benchmark;
Level D of the BASIC track with a maximum shared savings rate of 50
percent, not to exceed 10 percent of updated benchmark, and loss
sharing rate of 30 percent, not to exceed 4 percent of ACO participant
revenue capped at 2 percent of updated benchmark; Level E of the BASIC
track with a maximum shared savings rate of 50 percent, not to exceed
10 percent of updated benchmark, and loss sharing rate of 30 percent,
not to exceed the percentage of revenue specified in the revenue-based
nominal amount standard under the Quality Payment Program (for example,
8 percent in 2019-2020), capped at the amount that is 1 percentage
point higher than the percentage of the updated benchmark specified in
the expenditure-based nominal amount standard under the Quality Payment
Program (for example, 4 percent in 2019-2020); and the ENHANCED track
with a maximum shared savings rate of 75 percent, not to exceed 20
percent of updated benchmark, and loss sharing rate determined based on
the inverse of the final sharing rate, but not less than 40 percent
(that is, between 40-75 percent), not to exceed 15 percent of updated
benchmark. Additionally, new, low revenue ACOs will have the option to
participate under one-sided risk for 3 years and in exchange will be
required to move to Level E of the BASIC track for the final 2 years of
their 5-year agreement period.
To provide ACOs time to consider the new participation options and
prepare for program changes, make investments and other business
decisions about participation, obtain buy-in from their governing
bodies and executives, and to complete and submit a Shared Savings
Program application for a performance year beginning in 2019, we will
offer a July 1, 2019 start date for the first agreement period under
the new participation options. This midyear start in 2019 will also
allow both new
[[Page 67823]]
applicants and ACOs currently participating in the program an
opportunity to make any changes to the structure and composition of
their ACO as may be necessary to comply with the new program
requirements for the ACO's preferred participation option. ACOs
entering a new agreement period on July 1, 2019, will have the
opportunity to participate in the program under an agreement period
spanning 5 years and 6 months, with a 6-month first performance year.
We are finalizing modifications to the repayment mechanism
arrangement requirements, which help ensure that an ACO can repay
losses for which it may be liable. Our modifications include: (1)
Adding a provision to align repayment mechanism requirements across all
ACOs in two-sided models under the BASIC track and ENHANCED track to
allow a repayment mechanism equal to 2 percent of the ACO participants'
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue up to 1 percent of total per
capita Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries; (2) adding a provision to permit recalculation of the
estimated amount of the repayment mechanism each performance year to
account for changes in ACO participant composition; (3) specifying the
required duration of repayment mechanism arrangements and the options
available to ACOs for fulfilling this requirement; (4) adding a
provision to allow a renewing ACO the flexibility to maintain a single,
existing repayment mechanism arrangement to support its ability to
repay shared losses in the new agreement period so long as the term of
the arrangement is extended and the repayment mechanism amount is
modified to cover any increase to the repayment mechanism amount during
the new agreement period; and (5) establishing requirements regarding
the issuing institutions for a repayment mechanism arrangement.
This final rule establishes regulations in accordance with the
Bipartisan Budget Act on coverage for telehealth services furnished on
or after January 1, 2020, by physicians and other practitioners
participating in an ACO under performance-based risk that has selected
prospective assignment. This policy allows for payment for telehealth
services furnished to prospectively assigned beneficiaries receiving
telehealth services in non-rural areas, and allow beneficiaries to
receive certain telehealth services at their home, to support care
coordination across settings. The final rule also provides for limited
waivers of the originating site and geographic requirements to allow
for payment for otherwise covered telehealth services provided to
beneficiaries who are no longer prospectively assigned to an applicable
ACO (and therefore no longer eligible for payment for these services
under section 1899(l) of the Act) during a 90-day grace period. In
addition, ACO participants are prohibited, under certain circumstances,
from charging beneficiaries for telehealth services, where CMS does not
pay for those telehealth services under section 1899(l) of the Act
solely because the beneficiary was never prospectively assigned to the
applicable ACO or was prospectively assigned, but the 90-day grace
period has lapsed.
We are finalizing the policy to allow eligible ACOs under
performance-based risk under either prospective assignment or
preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation to
use the program's existing SNF 3-day rule waiver. We also are amending
the existing SNF 3-day rule waiver to allow critical access hospitals
(CAHs) and other small, rural hospitals operating under a swing bed
agreement to be eligible to partner with eligible ACOs as SNF
affiliates for purposes of the SNF 3-day rule waiver.
We are finalizing policies to expand the role of choice and
incentives in engaging beneficiaries in their health care. First, we
are establishing regulations in accordance with section 1899(m)(1)(A)
of the Act, as added by section 50341 of the Bipartisan Budget Act, to
permit ACOs under certain two-sided models to operate CMS-approved
beneficiary incentive programs. The beneficiary incentive programs will
encourage beneficiaries assigned to certain ACOs to obtain medically
necessary primary care services while requiring such ACOs to comply
with program integrity and other requirements, as the Secretary
determines necessary. Any ACO that operates a CMS-approved beneficiary
incentive program will be required to ensure that certain information
about its beneficiary incentive program is made available to CMS and
the public on its public reporting web page. Second, to empower
beneficiary choice and further program transparency, we are revising
policies related to beneficiary notifications. For example, we are
requiring that ACOs notify Medicare FFS beneficiaries about voluntary
alignment in the written notifications they must provide to
beneficiaries. An ACO or its ACO participants will be required to
provide each beneficiary with such notification prior to or at the
beneficiary's first primary care visit of each performance year. In
addition, such information must be posted in an ACO participant's
facility and available upon request (as currently required).
Additionally, any ACO that operates a beneficiary incentive program
must also notify its beneficiaries of the availability of the program.
We are finalizing new policies for determining the participation
options for ACOs based on the degree to which ACOs control total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for their assigned
beneficiaries (low revenue ACO versus high revenue ACO), and the
experience of the ACO's legal entity and ACO participants with the
Shared Savings Program and performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives.
We also are revising the criteria for evaluating the eligibility of
ACOs seeking to renew their participation in the program for a
subsequent agreement period and ACOs applying to re-enter the program
after termination or expiration of the ACO's previous agreement, based
on the ACO's prior participation in the Shared Savings Program. We also
will identify new ACOs as re-entering ACOs if greater than 50 percent
of their ACO participants have recent prior participation in the same
ACO in order to hold these ACO accountable for their ACO participants'
experience with the program. We will use the same criteria to review
applications from renewing and re-entering ACOs to more consistently
consider ACOs' prior experience in the Shared Savings Program. We will
also modify existing review criteria, such as the ACO's history of
meeting the quality performance standard and the ACO's timely repayment
of shared losses to ensure applicability to ACOs with an agreement
period that is not less than 5 years. We will also strengthen the
program's requirements for monitoring ACOs within an agreement period
for poor financial performance to ensure that ACOs with poor financial
performance are not allowed to continue their participation in the
program, or to re-enter the program without addressing the deficiencies
that resulted in termination.
We are updating program policies related to termination of ACOs'
participation in the program. We are reducing the amount of notice an
ACO must provide CMS of its decision to voluntarily terminate. We also
address the timing of an ACO's re-entry into the program after
termination. Specifically, we are modifying current requirements that
prevent an ACO from terminating its participation agreement and quickly
re-entering the program to allow the flexibility for an ACO in a
current 3-year agreement period to terminate its
[[Page 67824]]
participation agreement and immediately enter a new agreement period of
not less than 5 years under one of the redesigned participation
options. We are also finalizing policies that will prevent ACOs from
taking advantage of this flexibility to avoid transitioning to risk by
repeatedly participating in the BASIC track's glide path for a short
time, terminating, and then entering a one-sided model in a future
agreement period under the BASIC track. Specifically, we will restrict
eligibility for the BASIC track's glide path to ACOs inexperienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, and we define
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative to include all levels of
the BASIC track's glide path. We also will differentiate between
initial entrants (ACOs entering the program for the first time), ``re-
entering ACOs'' (ACOs re-entering after a break in participation
following termination or expiration of a prior participation agreement,
and new ACOs identified as re-entering ACOs because greater than 50
percent of their ACO participants have recent prior participation in
the same ACO), and ``renewing ACOs'' (ACOs that participate
continuously in the program, without interruption, including ACOs that
choose to renew early by terminating their current agreement and
immediately entering a new agreement period). This differentiation is
relevant for determining the agreement period the ACO is entering for
purposes of applying policies that phase-in over time (benchmarking
methodology and quality performance standards) and for determining
whether an ACO can extend the use of its existing repayment mechanism
when it enters a new agreement period.
Further, we will impose payment consequences for early termination
by holding ACOs in two-sided models liable for pro-rated shared losses.
This approach will apply to ACOs that voluntarily terminate their
participation more than midway through a 12-month performance year and
all ACOs that are involuntarily terminated by CMS. ACOs will continue
to be ineligible to share in savings for a performance year if the
effective date of their termination from the program is prior to the
last calendar day of the performance year; however, we will allow an
exception for ACOs that are participating in the program as of January
1, 2019, that terminate their agreement with an effective date of June
30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period under the BASIC track or
ENHANCED track beginning July 1, 2019. Under this exception, an ACO
would be eligible for pro-rated shared savings or liable for pro-rated
shared losses. In these cases, we will perform separate reconciliations
to determine shared savings and shared losses for the ACO's first 6
months of participation in 2019 and for the ACO's 6-month performance
year from July 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, under the subsequent
participation agreement.
To strengthen ACO financial incentives for continued program
participation and improve the sustainability of the program, we are
finalizing changes to the methodology for establishing, adjusting,
updating and resetting benchmarks for agreement periods beginning on
July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years, to include the following:
Application of factors based on regional FFS
expenditures to establish, adjust, and update the ACO's benchmark
beginning in an ACO's first agreement period, to move benchmarks
away from being based solely on the ACO's historical costs and allow
them to better reflect costs in the ACO's region.
Mitigating the risk that an excessive positive or
negative regional adjustment will be used to establish and reset the
benchmark by--
++ Reducing the maximum weight used in calculating the regional
adjustment from 70 percent to 50 percent;
++ Modifying the phase in schedule for applying increased
weights in calculating the regional adjustment for ACOs with
spending above their region; and
++ Capping the amount of the adjustment based on a percentage of
national FFS expenditures.
Calculating growth rates used in trending expenditures
to establish the benchmark and in updating the benchmark each
performance year as a blend of regional and national expenditure
growth rates with increasing weight placed on the national component
of the blend as the ACO's penetration in its region increases.
Better accounting for certain health status changes by
using full CMS-Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk scores to
adjust the benchmark each performance year, although restricting the
upward effects of these adjustments to positive 3 percent over the
agreement period.
We also discuss comments received in response to our request for
comment on approaches for encouraging Medicare ACOs to collaborate with
the sponsors of stand-alone Part D PDPs (Part D sponsors) to improve
the coordination of pharmacy care for Medicare FFS beneficiaries to
reduce the risk of adverse events and improve medication adherence. In
particular, we sought comment to understand how Medicare ACOs, and
specifically Shared Savings Program ACOs, and Part D sponsors could
work together and be encouraged to improve the coordination of pharmacy
care for Medicare FFS beneficiaries to achieve better health outcomes,
what clinical and pharmacy data may be necessary to support improved
coordination of pharmacy care for Medicare FFS beneficiaries, and
approaches to structuring financial arrangements to reward ACOs and
Part D sponsors for improved health outcomes and lower growth in
expenditures for Medicare FFS beneficiaries.
Lastly, in the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period
we established policies for assessing the financial and quality
performance of Shared Savings Program ACOs that were affected by
extreme and uncontrollable circumstances during performance year 2017,
including the applicable quality reporting period for performance year
2017. These policies were used to assess quality and financial
performance during performance year 2017 for ACOs subject to extreme
and uncontrollable events, such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria,
and the California wildfires, during performance year 2017, including
the applicable quality data reporting period for the performance year.
In this final rule, we provide an analysis of and responses to the
public comments we received in response to the December 2017 interim
final rule with comment period.
3. Summary of Costs and Benefits
As detailed in section V. of this final rule, the faster transition
from one-sided model agreements to performance-based risk arrangements,
tempered by the option for eligible ACOs of a gentler exposure to
downside risk calculated as a percentage of ACO participants' total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue and capped at a percentage of the
ACO's benchmark, can affect broader participation in performance-based
risk in the Shared Savings Program and reduce overall claims costs. A
second key driver of estimated net savings is the reduction in shared
savings payments from the limitation on the amount of the regional
adjustment to the ACO's historical benchmark. Such reduction in overall
shared savings payments is projected to result despite the benefit of
higher net adjustments expected for a larger number of ACOs from the
use of a simpler HCC risk adjustment methodology, the blending of
national and regional expenditure growth rates for certain benchmark
calculations, and longer (at least 5 years, instead of 3-year)
agreement periods that allow ACOs a longer horizon from which to
benefit from efficiency gains before benchmark rebasing. Overall, the
decreases in claims costs and shared
[[Page 67825]]
saving payments to ACOs are projected to result in $2.9 billion in
federal savings over 10 years.
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(Pub. L. 111-148) was enacted, followed by enactment of the Health Care
and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) on March 30,
2010, which amended certain provisions of Public Law 111-148.
Section 3022 of the Affordable Care Act amended Title XVIII of the
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) by adding section 1899 to the Act to
establish the Shared Savings Program to facilitate coordination and
cooperation among health care providers to improve the quality of care
for Medicare FFS beneficiaries and reduce the rate of growth in
expenditures under Medicare Parts A and B. See 42 U.S.C. 1395jjj.
The final rule establishing the Shared Savings Program appeared in
the November 2, 2011 Federal Register (Medicare Program; Medicare
Shared Savings Program: Accountable Care Organizations; Final Rule (76
FR 67802) (hereinafter referred to as the ``November 2011 final
rule'')). We viewed this final rule as a starting point for the
program, and because of the scope and scale of the program and our
limited experience with shared savings initiatives under FFS Medicare,
we built a great deal of flexibility into the program rules.
Through subsequent rulemaking, we have revisited and amended Shared
Savings Program policies in light of the additional experience we
gained during the initial years of program implementation as well as
from testing through the Pioneer ACO Model, the Next Generation ACO
Model, and other initiatives conducted by the Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) under section 1115A of the Act.
A major update to the program rules appeared in the June 9, 2015
Federal Register (Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program:
Accountable Care Organizations; Final Rule (80 FR 32692) (hereinafter
referred to as the ``June 2015 final rule'')). A final rule addressing
changes related to the program's financial benchmark methodology
appeared in the June 10, 2016 Federal Register (Medicare Program;
Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable Care Organizations--
Revised Benchmark Rebasing Methodology, Facilitating Transition to
Performance-Based Risk, and Administrative Finality of Financial
Calculations (81 FR 37950) (hereinafter referred to as the ``June 2016
final rule'')). We have also made use of the annual CY Physician Fee
Schedule (PFS) rules to address updates to the Shared Savings Program
quality measures, scoring, and quality performance standard, the
program's beneficiary assignment methodology and certain other
issues.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See for example, Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment
Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule, Clinical Laboratory Fee
Schedule & Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2014; Final Rule (78 FR
74230, Dec. 10, 2013). Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment
Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule, Clinical Laboratory Fee
Schedule & Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2015; Final Rule (79 FR
67548, Nov. 13, 2014). Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment
Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule, Clinical Laboratory Fee
Schedule & Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2016; Final Rule (80 FR
70886, Nov. 16, 2015). Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment
Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule, Clinical Laboratory Fee
Schedule & Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Final Rule (81 FR
80170, Nov. 15, 2016). Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment
Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule, Clinical Laboratory Fee
Schedule & Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2018; Final Rule (82 FR
52976, Nov. 15, 2017). Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment
Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to
Part B for CY 2019; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements;
Quality Payment Program; Medicaid Promoting Interoperability
Program; Quality Payment Program--Extreme and Uncontrollable
Circumstance Policy for the 2019 MIPS Payment Year; Provisions From
the Medicare Shared Savings Program--Accountable Care
Organizations--Pathways to Success; and Expanding the Use of
Telehealth Services for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder Under
the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention That Promotes Opioid Recovery
and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities Act'' (83 FR
59452, Nov. 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policies applicable to Shared Savings Program ACOs have continued
to evolve based on changes in the law. The Medicare Access and CHIP
Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) established the Quality Payment
Program (Pub. L. 114-10). In the CY 2017 Quality Payment Program final
rule with comment period (81 FR 77008), CMS established regulations for
the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Advanced
Alternative Payment Models (APMs) and related policies applicable to
eligible clinicians who participate in the Shared Savings Program.
The requirements for assignment of Medicare FFS beneficiaries to
ACOs participating under the program were amended by the 21st Century
Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255). Accordingly, we revised the program's
regulations in the CY 2018 PFS final rule to reflect these new
requirements.
On February 9, 2018, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 was enacted
(Pub. L. 115-123), amending section 1899 of the Act to provide for the
following: Expanded use of telehealth services by physicians or
practitioners participating in an applicable ACO to a prospectively
assigned beneficiary, greater flexibility in the assignment of Medicare
FFS beneficiaries to ACOs by allowing ACOs in tracks under
retrospective beneficiary assignment a choice of prospective assignment
for the agreement period, permitting Medicare FFS beneficiaries to
voluntarily identify an ACO professional as their primary care provider
and requiring that such beneficiaries be notified of the ability to
make and change such identification, and mandating that any such
voluntary identification will supersede claims-based assignment, and
allowing ACOs under certain two-sided models to establish CMS-approved
beneficiary incentive programs.
In the November 2018 final rule, we finalized a subset of the
provisions proposed in the August 2018 proposed rule and the CY 2019
PFS proposed rule as follows:
Offering existing ACOs whose participation agreements
expire on December 31, 2018, the opportunity to elect a voluntary 6-
month extension of their current agreement period, and the
methodology for determining financial and quality performance for
the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30,
2019.
Allowing beneficiaries greater flexibility in selecting
their primary care provider and in the use of that selection for
purposes of assigning the beneficiary to an ACO, if the clinician
they align with is participating in an ACO, as provided for in the
Bipartisan Budget Act.
Revising the definition of primary care services used
in beneficiary assignment.
Providing relief for ACOs and their clinicians impacted
by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances in performance year 2018
and subsequent years.
Reducing the Shared Savings Program core quality
measure set by eight measures; and promoting interoperability among
ACO providers/suppliers by adding a new CEHRT threshold criterion to
determine ACOs' eligibility for program participation and retiring
the current Shared Savings Program quality measure on the percentage
of eligible clinicians using CEHRT.
II. Provisions of the August 2018 Proposed Rule and Analysis of and
Responses to Public Comments
In the August 17, 2018 Federal Register (83 FR 41786), we published
a proposed rule titled ``Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings
Program; Accountable Care Organizations--Pathways to Success''. The
proposed rule would provide a new direction for the Shared Savings
Program by establishing pathways to success through redesigning the
participation options available under the program to encourage ACOs to
transition to two-sided models (in which they may share
[[Page 67826]]
in savings and are accountable for repaying shared losses). These
policies are designed to increase savings for the Trust Funds and
mitigate losses, reduce gaming opportunities, and promote regulatory
flexibility and free-market principles. The rule would also provide new
tools to support coordination of care across settings and strengthen
beneficiary engagement; ensure rigorous benchmarking; promote
interoperable electronic health record technology among ACO providers/
suppliers; and improve information sharing on opioid use to combat
opioid addiction.
We received 469 timely pieces of correspondence in response to the
proposed rule. Stakeholders offered comments that addressed both high
level issues related to the Shared Savings Program as well as our
specific proposals and requests for comments. We extend our deep
appreciation to the public for their interest in the program and the
many comments that were made in response to our proposed policies. In
some instances, the public comments offered were outside the scope of
the proposed rule and will not be addressed in this final rule.
As summarized in section I.B of this final rule, in the November
2018 final rule, we addressed a subset of changes to the Shared Savings
Program proposed in the August 2018 proposed rule. In the following
sections of this final rule, we summarize and respond to public
comments on the following proposed policies and discuss our final
policies after taking into consideration the public comments we
received on the August 2018 proposed rule.
A. Redesigning Participation Options To Facilitate Transition to
Performance-Based Risk
In this section, we discuss a series of interrelated proposals
around transition to risk, including: (1) Length of time an ACO may
remain under a one-sided model; (2) the levels of risk and reward under
the program's participation options; (3) the duration of the ACO's
agreement period; and (4) the degree of flexibility ACOs have to choose
their beneficiary assignment methodology and also to select their level
of risk within an agreement period.
1. Background on Shared Savings Program Participation Options
In this section, we review the statutory and regulatory background
for the program's participation options by track and the length of the
ACO's agreement period for participation in the program, and also
provide an overview of current ACO participation in the program for
performance year 2018.
a. Background on Development of Track 1, Track 2 and Track 3
Section 1899(d) of the Act establishes the general requirements for
shared savings payments to participating ACOs. Specifically, section
1899(d)(1)(A) of the Act specifies that providers of services and
suppliers participating in an ACO will continue to receive payments
under the original Medicare FFS program under Parts A and B in the same
manner as would otherwise be made, and that an ACO is eligible to
receive payment for a portion of savings generated for Medicare
provided that the ACO meets both the quality performance standards
established by the Secretary and achieves savings against its
historical benchmark based on average per capita Medicare FFS
expenditures during the 3 years preceding the start of the agreement
period. Additionally, section 1899(i) of the Act authorizes the
Secretary to use other payment models rather than the one-sided model
described in section 1899(d) of the Act, as long as the Secretary
determines that the other payment model will improve the quality and
efficiency of items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries
without additional program expenditures.
In the November 2011 final rule establishing the Shared Savings
Program (76 FR 67909), we created two tracks from which ACOs could
choose to participate: The one-sided model (Track 1) that is based on
the statutory payment methodology under section 1899(d) of the Act, and
a two-sided model (Track 2) that is also based on the payment
methodology under section 1899(d) of the Act, but incorporates
performance-based risk using the authority under section 1899(i)(3) of
the Act to use other payment models. Under the one-sided model, ACOs
can qualify to share in savings but are not responsible for losses.
Under a two-sided model, ACOs can qualify to share in savings with an
increased sharing rate, but must also take on risk for sharing in
losses. ACOs entering the program or renewing their agreement may elect
to enter a two-sided model. Once an ACO has elected to participate
under a two-sided model, the ACO cannot go into Track 1 for subsequent
agreement periods (see Sec. 425.600).
In the initial rulemaking for the program, we considered several
approaches to designing the program's participation options,
principally: (1) Base the program on a two-sided model, thereby
requiring all participants to accept risk from the first program year;
(2) allow applicants to choose between program tracks, either a one-
sided model or two-sided model, for the duration of the agreement; or
(3) allow a choice of tracks, but require ACOs electing the one-sided
model to transition to the two-sided model during their initial
agreement period (see, for example, 76 FR 19618). We proposed a design
for Track 1 whereby ACOs would enter a 3-year agreement period under
the one-sided model and would automatically transition to the two-sided
model (under Track 2) in the third year of their initial agreement
period. Thereafter, those ACOs that wished to continue participating in
the Shared Savings Program would only have the option of participating
under performance-based risk (see 76 FR 19618). We explained that this
approach would have the advantage of providing an entry point for
organizations with less experience with risk models, such as some
physician-driven organizations or smaller ACOs, to gain experience with
population management before transitioning to a risk-based model while
also providing an opportunity for more experienced ACOs that are ready
to share in losses to enter a sharing arrangement that provides the
potential for greater reward in exchange for assuming greater potential
responsibility. A few commenters favored this proposed approach,
indicating the importance of performance-based risk in the health care
delivery system transformation necessary to achieve the program's aims
and for ``good stewardship'' of Medicare Trust Fund dollars. However,
most commenters expressed concerns about requiring ACOs to quickly
accept performance-based risk. Therefore, we finalized a policy where
an ACO could remain under the one-sided model for the duration of its
first agreement period (see 76 FR 67904 through 67909).
In earlier rulemaking, we explained that offering multiple tracks
with differing degrees of risk across the Shared Savings Program tracks
would create an ``on-ramp'' for the program to attract both providers
and suppliers that are new to value-based purchasing, as well as more
experienced entities that are ready to share performance-based risk. We
stated that a one-sided model would have the potential to attract a
large number of participants to the program and introduce value-based
purchasing broadly to providers and suppliers, many of whom may never
have participated in a value-based purchasing initiative before (see,
for example, 76 FR 67904 through 67909).
Another reason we included the option for a one-sided track with no
[[Page 67827]]
downside risk was that this model would be accessible to and attract
small, rural, safety net, and/or physician-only ACOs (see 80 FR 32759).
Commenters identified groups that may be especially challenged by the
upfront costs of ACO formation and operations, including: Private
primary care practitioners, small to medium sized physician practices,
small ACOs, safety net providers (that is, Rural Health Clinics (RHCs),
CAHs, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), community-funded
safety net clinics), and other rural providers (that is, Method II
CAHs, rural prospective payment system hospitals designated as rural
referral centers, sole community hospitals, Medicare dependent
hospitals, or rural primary care providers) (see 76 FR 67834 through
67835). Further, commenters also indicated that ACOs that are composed
of small- and medium-sized physician practices, loosely formed
physician networks, safety net providers, and small and/or rural ACOs
would be encouraged to participate in the program based on the
availability of a one-sided model (see, for example, 76 FR 67906).
Commenters also expressed concerns about requiring ACOs that may lack
experience with care management or managing performance-based risk to
quickly transition to performance-based risk. Some commenters suggested
that small, rural and physician-only ACOs be exempt from downside risk
(see, for example, 76 FR 67906).
In establishing the program's initial two track approach, we
acknowledged that ACOs new to the accountable care model--and
particularly small, rural, safety net, and physician-only ACOs--would
benefit from additional time under the one-sided model before being
required to accept risk (76 FR 67907). However, we also noted that
although a one-sided model could provide incentives for participants to
improve quality, it might not be sufficient incentive for participants
to improve the efficiency and cost of health care delivery (76 FR 67904
and 80 FR 32759). We explained that payment models where ACOs bear a
degree of financial risk have the potential to induce more meaningful
systematic change in providers' and suppliers' behavior (see, for
example, 76 FR 67907). We also explained that performance-based risk
options could have the advantage of providing more experienced ACOs an
opportunity to enter a sharing arrangement with the potential for
greater reward in exchange for assuming greater potential
responsibility (see, for example, 76 FR 67907).
We note that in earlier rulemaking we have used several terms to
refer to participation options in the Shared Savings Program under
which an ACO is potentially liable to share in losses with Medicare. In
the initial rulemaking for the program, we defined ``two-sided model''
to mean a model under which the ACO may share savings with the Medicare
program, if it meets the requirements for doing so, and is also liable
for sharing any losses incurred (Sec. 425.20). We have also used the
term ``performance-based risk'' to refer to the type of risk an ACO
participating in a two-sided model undertakes. As we explained in the
November 2011 final rule (76 FR 67945), in a two-sided model under the
Shared Savings Program, the Medicare program retains the insurance risk
and responsibility for paying claims for the services furnished to
Medicare beneficiaries. It is only shared savings payments (and shared
losses in a two-sided model) that will be contingent upon ACO
performance. The agreement to share risk against the benchmark would be
solely between the Medicare program and the ACO. As a result, we have
tended to use the terms ``two-sided model'' and ``performance-based
risk'' interchangeably, considering them to be synonymous when
describing payment models offered under the Shared Savings Program and
Medicare ACO initiatives more broadly.
In the June 2015 final rule, we modified the existing policies to
allow eligible Track 1 ACOs to renew for a second agreement period
under the one-sided model, and to require that they enter a
performance-based risk track in order to remain in the program for a
third or subsequent agreement period. We explained the rationale for
these policies in the prior rulemaking and we refer readers to the
December 2014 proposed rule and June 2015 final rule for more detailed
discussion. (See, for example, 79 FR 72804, and 80 FR 32760 through
32761.) In developing these policies, we considered, but did not
finalize, approaches to make Track 1 less attractive for continued
participation, in order to support progression to risk, including
offering a reduced sharing rate to ACOs remaining under the one-sided
model for a second agreement period.\3\ We also modified the two-sided
performance-based risk track (Track 2) and began to offer an
alternative two-sided performance-based risk track (Track 3) for
agreement periods beginning on or after January 1, 2016 (80 FR 32771
through 32781). Compared to Track 2, which uses the same preliminary
prospective beneficiary assignment methodology with retrospective
reconciliation as Track 1, Track 3 includes prospective beneficiary
assignment and a higher sharing rate for shared savings as well as the
potential for greater liability for shared losses. Further, we
established a SNF 3-day rule waiver (discussed further in section
II.B.2.a. of this final rule), for use by eligible Track 3 ACOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 79 FR 72805 (discussing proposal to reduce the sharing
rate by 10 percentage points for ACOs in a second agreement period
under Track 1 to make staying in the one-sided model less attractive
than moving forward along the risk continuum); 80 FR 32766 (In
response to our proposal in the December 2014 proposed rule to offer
a 40 percent sharing rate to ACOs that remained in Track 1 for a
second agreement period, several commenters recommended dropping the
sharing rate under the one-sided model even further to encourage
ACOs to more quickly accept performance-based risk, for example to
20 percent, 25 percent or 30 percent under the second agreement
period, or making a 5 percentage point reduction for each year under
the second agreement period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Innovation Center has tested progressively higher levels of
risk for more experienced ACOs through the Pioneer ACO Model (concluded
December 31, 2016) and the Next Generation ACO Model (ongoing).\4\
Lessons learned from the Pioneer ACO Model were important
considerations in the development of Track 3, which incorporates
several features of the Pioneer ACO Model, including prospective
beneficiary assignment, higher levels of risk and reward (compared to
Track 2), and the availability of a SNF-3-day rule waiver. Since Track
3 was introduced as a participation option under the Shared Savings
Program, we have seen a growing interest, with 16 Track 3 ACOs
completing PY 2016 and 38 Track 3 ACOs participating in PY 2018. The
continued increase in the number of ACOs participating in Track 3, a
higher proportion of which have achieved shared savings compared to
Track 1 ACOs, suggests that the track offers a pathway to improve care
for beneficiaries at a level of risk and reward sufficient to induce
ACOs to improve their financial performance.
[[Page 67828]]
For example, for performance year 2016, about 56 percent of Track 3
ACOs (9 of 16 ACOs) achieved shared savings compared to 29 percent of
Track 1 ACOs (119 of 410 ACOs). See 2016 Shared Savings Program
Accountable Care Organization Public Use File, available at https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Downloadable-Public-Use-Files/SSPACO/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Pioneer ACO Model website, https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Pioneer-aco-model/ (the Pioneer ACO Model ``was designed
for health care organizations and providers that were already
experienced in coordinating care for patients across care
settings''); see also CMS Press Release, New Participants Join
Several CMS Alternative Payment Models (January 18, 2017), available
at https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2017-Press-releases-items/2017-01-18.html (the ``Next Generation ACO
Model was designed to test whether strong financial incentives for
ACOs can improve health outcomes and reduce expenditures for
Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Provider groups in this
model assume higher levels of financial risk and reward than are
available under the Shared Savings Program.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Innovation Center has tested two models for providing
up-front funding to eligible small, rural, or physician-only Shared
Savings Program ACOs. Initially, CMS offered the Advance Payment ACO
Model, beginning in 2012 and concluding December 31, 2015. See https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Advance-Payment-ACO-Model/. The ACO
Investment Model (AIM), which began in 2015, builds on the experience
with the Advance Payment ACO Model. The AIM is ongoing, with 45
participating ACOs. See https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/ACO-Investment-Model/.
In the June 2016 final rule, to further encourage ACOs to
transition to performance-based risk, we finalized a participation
option for eligible Track 1 ACOs to defer by one year their entrance
into a second agreement period under a two-sided model (Track 2 or
Track 3) by extending their first agreement period under Track 1 for a
fourth performance year (Sec. 425.200(e); 81 FR 37994 through 37997).
Under this deferred renewal option, we defer resetting the benchmark as
specified at Sec. 425.603 until the beginning of the ACO's second
agreement period. This participation option became available to ACOs
seeking to enter their second agreement period beginning in 2017 and in
subsequent years. However, only a small number of ACOs have made use of
this option.
In prior rulemaking for the Shared Savings Program, we have
indicated that we would continue to evaluate the appropriateness and
effectiveness of our incentives to encourage ACOs to transition to a
performance-based risk track and, as necessary, might revisit
alternative participation options through future notice and comment
rulemaking (81 FR 37995 through 37996). We stated that it is timely to
reconsider the participation options available under the program in
light of the financial and quality results for the first four
performance years under the program, participation trends by ACOs, and
feedback from ACOs and other program stakeholders' about factors that
encourage transition to risk. Therefore, we issued the August 2018
proposed rule.
b. Background on Factors Affecting Transition to Performance-Based Risk
Based on comments submitted by ACOs and other program stakeholders
in response to earlier rulemaking and our experience with implementing
the Shared Savings Program, a combination of factors affect ACOs'
transition to performance-based risk.\5\ These factors include the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, for example, 80 FR 32761 (summarizing comments
suggesting a combination of factors could make the program more
attractive and encourage ACOs to transition to risk, such as: The
level of risk and reward offered under the program's financial
models, tools to enable ACOs to more effectively control and manage
their patient populations, opportunity for ACOs to gain experience
with the program under the one-sided model under the same rules that
would be applied under a two-sided model, including the assignment
methodology, allowing ACOs to move to two-sided risk within an
agreement period, and allowing for longer agreement periods).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Length of time allowed under a one-sided model and availability
of options to transition from a one-sided model to a two-sided model
within an ACO's agreement period. (Discussed in detail within this
section. See also discussion of related background in section II.A.1.a.
of this final rule.)
(2) An ACO's level of experience with the accountable care model
and the Shared Savings Program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See discussion in section II.A.1.a of this final rule. See
also 81 FR 37996 (summarizing comments suggesting that if a Track 1
ACO is uncertain about its ability to successfully manage financial
risk, the ACO would more likely simply choose to continue under
Track 1 for a second agreement period.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Choice of methodology used to assign beneficiaries to ACOs,
which determines the beneficiary population for which the ACO is
accountable for both the quality and cost of care. (Background on
choice of assignment methodology is discussed within this section; see
also section II.A.4. of this final rule.) Specifically, the assignment
methodology is used to determine the populations that are the basis for
determining the ACO's historical benchmark and the population assigned
to the ACO each performance year, which is the basis for determining
whether the ACO will share in savings or losses for that performance
year.
(4) Availability of program and payment flexibilities to ACOs
participating under performance-based risk to support beneficiary
engagement and the ACO's care coordination activities (see discussion
in sections II.B. and II.C. of this final rule).
(5) Financial burden on ACOs in meeting program requirements to
enter into two-sided models, specifically the requirement to establish
an adequate repayment mechanism (see discussion in section II.A.6.c. of
this final rule).
(6) Value proposition of the program's financial model under one-
sided and two-sided models.
The value proposition of the program's financial models raises a
number of key considerations that pertain to an ACO's transition to
risk. One consideration is the level of potential reward under the one-
sided model in relation to the levels of potential risk and reward
under a two-sided model. A second consideration is the availability of
asymmetrical levels of risk and reward, such as in the Medicare ACO
Track 1+ Model (Track 1+ Model), where, for certain eligible ACOs, the
level of risk is determined based on a percentage of ACO participants'
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue, not to exceed a percentage of
the ACO's benchmark (determined based on historical expenditures for
its assigned population). A third consideration is the interactions
between the ACO's participation in a two-sided model of the Shared
Savings Program and incentives available under other CMS value-based
payment initiatives; in particular, eligible clinicians participating
in an ACO under a two-sided model of the Shared Savings Program may
qualify to receive an APM incentive payment under the Quality Payment
Program for sufficient participation in an Advanced APM. Lastly, the
value proposition of the program is informed by the methodology for
setting and resetting the benchmark, which is the basis for determining
shared savings and shared losses, and the length of agreement period,
which determines the amount of time an ACO remains under a financial
model and the frequency of benchmark rebasing. See discussion in
sections II.D. (benchmarking) and II.A.1.c. (length of agreement
period) of this final rule.
Currently, the design of the program locks in the ACO's choice of
financial model, which also determines the applicable beneficiary
assignment methodology, for the duration of the ACO's 3-year agreement
period. For an ACO's initial or subsequent agreement period in the
Shared Savings Program, an ACO applies to participate in a particular
financial model (or ``track'') of the program as specified under Sec.
425.600(a). If the ACO's application is accepted, the ACO must remain
under that financial model for the duration of its 3-year agreement
period. Beneficiary assignment and the level of performance-based risk
(if applicable) are determined consistently for all ACOs participating
in a particular track. Under Track 1 and Track 2, we assign
[[Page 67829]]
beneficiaries using preliminary prospective assignment with
retrospective reconciliation (Sec. 425.400(a)(2)). Under Track 3, we
prospectively assign beneficiaries (Sec. 425.400(a)(3)).
As described in earlier rulemaking, commenters have urged that we
offer greater flexibility for ACOs in their choice of assignment
methodology.\7\ In the June 2015 final rule, we acknowledged there is
additional complexity and administrative burden to implementing an
approach under which ACOs in any track may choose either prospective
assignment or preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation, with an opportunity to switch their selection on an
annual basis. At that time, we declined to implement prospective
assignment in Track 1 and Track 2, and we also declined to give ACOs in
Track 3 a choice of either prospective assignment or preliminary
prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation. Further, we
explained that implementing prospective assignment only in a two-sided
model track may encourage Track 1 ACOs that prefer this assignment
methodology, and the other features of Track 3, to more quickly
transition to performance-based risk (80 FR 32773).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, for example, 76 FR 67864 (summarizing comments
suggesting allowing ACOs a choice of prospective or retrospective
assignment); 80 FR 32772 through 32774 (In response to our proposal
to use a prospective assignment methodology in Track 3, many
commenters generally encouraged CMS to extend the option for
prospective assignment beyond Track 3 to Track 1 and Track 2. Other
commenters saw the value in retaining both assignment methodologies,
and encouraged CMS to allow all ACOs, regardless of track, a choice
of prospective or retrospective assignment. Several commenters
suggested CMS allow ACOs a choice of retrospective or prospective
assignment annually, within the ACO's 3-year agreement period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also have considered alternative approaches to allow ACOs
greater flexibility in the timing of their transition to performance-
based risk, including within an ACO's agreement period. For example, as
described in earlier rulemaking, commenters suggested approaches that
would allow less than two 3-year agreement periods under Track 1.\8\
Some commenters recommended that CMS allow ACOs to ``move up'' the risk
tracks (that is, move from Track 1 to Track 2 or Track 3, or move from
Track 2 to Track 3) between performance years without being required to
wait for the start of a new agreement period, to provide more
flexibility for ACOs prepared to accept performance-based risk, or a
higher level of performance-based risk. These commenters suggested that
allowing an ACO to accept varying degrees of risk within an agreement
period would position the ACO to best balance its exposure to and
tolerance for financial risk and would create a true glide path for
participating healthcare providers (81 FR 37995 through 37996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, for example, 76 FR 67907 through 67909 (discussing
comments suggesting ACOs be allowed 3, 4, 5, or 6 years under Track
1 prior to transitioning to a performance-based risk track).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transition to performance-based risk has taken on greater
significance with the introduction of the Quality Payment Program.
Under the CY 2017 Quality Payment Program final rule with comment
period,\9\ ACO initiatives that require ACOs to bear risk for monetary
losses of more than a nominal amount, and that meet additional
criteria, can qualify as Advanced APMs beginning in performance year
2017. Eligible clinicians who sufficiently participate in Advanced APMs
such that they are Qualifying APM Participants (QPs) for a performance
year receive APM Incentive Payments in the corresponding payment year
between 2019 through 2024, and then higher fee schedule updates
starting in 2026. Track 2 and Track 3 of the Shared Savings Program,
and the Track 1+ Model, are currently Advanced APMs under the Quality
Payment Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and
Alternative Payment Model (APM) Incentive under the Physician Fee
Schedule, and Criteria for Physician-Focused Payment Models final
rule with comment period, 81 FR 77008 (Nov. 4, 2016), herein
referred to as the CY 2017 Quality Payment Program final rule with
comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACOs and other program stakeholders continue to express a variety
of concerns about the transition to risk under Track 2 and Track 3. For
example, as described in the CY 2017 Quality Payment Program final rule
with comment period (see, for example, 81 FR 77421 through 77422),
commenters suggested a new Shared Savings Program track as a meaningful
middle path between Track 1 and Track 2 (``Track 1.5''), that meets the
Advanced APM generally applicable nominal amount standard, to create an
option for ACOs with relatively low revenue or small numbers of
participating eligible clinicians to participate in an Advanced APM
without accepting the higher degrees of risk involved in Track 2 and
Track 3. Commenters suggested this track would be a viable on-ramp for
ACOs to assume greater amounts of risk in the future. Commenters'
suggestions for Track 1.5 included prospective beneficiary assignment,
asymmetric levels of risk and reward, and payment rule waivers, such as
the SNF 3-day rule waiver available to ACOs participating in Shared
Savings Program Track 3.\10\ Another key component of commenters'
suggestions was to allow Track 1 ACOs to transition to Track 1.5 within
their current agreement periods.\11\ These commenters' suggestions were
considered in developing the Track 1+ Model, which began on January 1,
2018. This Model, which is being tested by the Innovation Center,
includes a two-sided payment model that incorporates the upside of
Track 1 with more limited downside risk than is currently present in
Track 2 or Track 3 of the Shared Savings Program. The Track 1+ Model is
currently an Advanced APM under the Quality Payment Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See CY 2017 Quality Payment Program final rule with comment
period for summary of comments and responses. Individual comments
are available at https://www.regulations.gov, search on file code
CMS-5517-P, docket ID CMS-2016-0060 (https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&dct=PS&D=CMS-2016-0060). See for example, Letter from Clif Gaus, NAACOS to Andrew
Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, regarding CMS-5517-P (June 27, 2016); Letter from Tonya K.
Wells, Trinity Health to Slavitt regarding CMS-5517-P (June 27,
2016); Letter from Joseph Bisordi, M.D., Ochsner Health System to
Slavitt regarding CMS-5517-P (June 27, 2016); Letter from Kevin
Bogari, Lancaster General Health Community Care Collaborative to
Slavitt regarding CMS-5517-P (June 27, 2016).
\11\ See 81 FR 77421 (describing comments suggesting CMS adopt a
Track 1.5 and also suggesting that Track 1 ACOs should be permitted
to move into this suggested Track 1.5 before the end of their
current agreement period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Track 1+ Model is designed to encourage ACOs, especially those
made up of small physician practices, to advance to performance-based
risk. ACOs that include hospitals, including small rural hospitals, are
also allowed to participate. See CMS Fact Sheet, New Accountable Care
Organization Model Opportunity: Medicare ACO Track 1+ Model, Updated
July 2017 (herein Track 1+ Model Fact Sheet), available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/New-Accountable-Care-Organization-Model-Opportunity-Fact-Sheet.pdf. In performance year 2018, 55 ACOs began in
the Track 1+ Model, demonstrating strong interest in this financial
model design. The availability of the Track 1+ Model increased the
number of ACOs participating under a two-sided risk model in connection
with their participation in the Shared Savings Program to approximately
18 percent, with approximately 22.7 percent of assigned beneficiaries
receiving care through an ACO in a two-sided model. Of the 55 Track 1+
Model ACOs, based on the ACOs' self-reported composition: 58.2 percent
attested to the presence of
[[Page 67830]]
an ownership or operational interest by an inpatient prospective
payment system (IPPS) hospital, cancer center or rural hospital with
more than 100 beds among their ACO participants, and therefore these
ACOs were under a benchmark-based loss sharing limit; and 41.8 percent
attested to the absence of such ownership or operational interests by
these institutional providers among their ACO participants (likely ACOs
composed of independent physician practices and/or ACOs that include
small rural hospitals), which qualified these ACOs for generally lower
levels of risk under the Track 1+ Model's revenue-based loss sharing
limit.
c. Background on Length of Agreement Period
Section 1899(b)(2)(B) of the Act requires participating ACOs to
enter into an agreement with CMS to participate in the program for not
less than a 3-year period referred to as the agreement period. Further,
section 1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act requires us to reset the benchmark
at the start of each agreement period. In initial rulemaking for the
program, we limited participation agreements to 3-year periods (see 76
FR 19544, and 76 FR 67807). We have considered the length of the ACO's
agreement period in the context of the amount of time an ACO may remain
in a one-sided model and also the frequency with which we reset (or
rebase) the ACO's historical benchmark. For example, in the June 2015
final rule, we discussed commenters' suggestions that we extend the
agreement period from the current 3 years to a 5-year agreement period,
for all tracks, including not only the initial agreement period, but
all subsequent agreement periods.\12\ These commenters explained that
extending the length of the agreement period would make the program
more attractive by increasing program stability and providing ACOs with
the necessary time to achieve the desired quality and financial
outcomes. We declined to adopt these suggestions, believing at that
time it was more appropriate to maintain a 3-year agreement period to
provide continuity with the initial design of the program. At that time
we did not find it necessary to extend agreement periods past 3 years
to address the renewal of initial program entrants, particularly in
light of the policies we finalized in the June 2015 final rule allowing
Track 1 ACOs to apply to continue under the one-sided model for a
second 3-year agreement period and modifying the benchmark rebasing
methodology. However, we explained that longer agreement periods could
increase the likelihood that ACOs would build on the success or
continue the failure of their current agreement period. For this reason
we noted that rebasing every 3 years, at the start of each 3-year
agreement period, is important to protect both the Trust Funds and
ACOs. See 80 FR 32763. See also 81 FR 37957 (noting commenters'
suggestions that we eliminate rebasing or reducing the frequency of
rebasing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 80 FR 32763. See also 80 FR 32761 (discussing several
commenters' recommendation to move to 5 or 6 year agreements for
ACOs and the suggestion that ACOs have the opportunity to move to a
performance-based risk model during their first agreement period,
for example, after their first 3 years under the one-sided model. A
commenter suggested encouraging ACOs to transition to two-sided risk
by offering lower loss sharing rates for ACOs that move from Track 1
to the two-sided model during the course of an agreement period, and
phasing-in loss sharing rates for these ACOs (for example, 15
percent in year 1, 30 percent in year 2, 60 percent in year 3).
Another commenter suggested that CMS allow all ACOs (regardless of
track) the option to increase their level of risk annually during
the agreement period.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Background on Shared Savings Program Participation
There remains a high degree of interest in participation in the
Shared Savings Program. Although most ACOs continue to participate in
the program's one-sided model (Track 1), ACOs have demonstrated
significant interest in the Track 1+ Model. Table 2 summarizes the
total number of ACOs that are participating in the Shared Savings
Program, including those also participating in the Track 1+ Model, for
performance year 2018 with the total number of assigned beneficiaries
by track.\13\ Of the 561 ACOs participating in the program as of
January 1, 2018, 55 were in the Track 1+ Model, 8 were in Track 2, 38
were in Track 3, and 460 were in Track 1. As of performance year 2018,
there are over 20,000 ACO participant Taxpayer Identification Numbers
(TINs) that include 377,515 clinicians (physicians, physician
assistants, nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists) some of
whom are in small and solo practices. About half of ACOs are provider
networks, and 66 ACOs include rural providers. See Medicare Shared
Savings Program Fast Facts (January 2018) available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/SSP-2018-Fast-Facts.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Performance Year 2018 Medicare Shared Savings Program
Accountable Care Organizations available at Data.CMS.gov, https://data.cms.gov/Special-Programs-Initiatives-Medicare-Shared-Saving/Performance-Year-2018-Medicare-Shared-Savings-Prog/28n4-k8qs/data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the program's existing requirements, ACOs can participate
in Track 1 for a maximum of two agreement periods. There are a growing
number of ACOs that have entered into their second agreement period,
and, starting in 2019, many that will begin a third agreement period
and will be required to enter a risk-based track.
The progression by some ACOs to performance-based risk within the
Shared Savings Program remains relatively slow, with approximately 82
percent of ACOs participating in Track 1 in 2018, 43 percent (196 of
460) of which are within a second agreement period in Track 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.002
[[Page 67831]]
However, the recent addition of the Track 1+ Model provided a
significant boost in Shared Savings Program ACOs taking on performance-
based risk, with over half of the 101 ACOs participating in the Shared
Savings Program and taking on performance-based risk opting for the
Track 1+ Model in 2018. The lower level of risk offered under the Track
1+ Model has been positively received by the industry and provided a
pathway to risk for many ACOs.
2. Modified Participation Options Under 5-Year Agreement Periods
As described in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41797 through
41801), in developing the proposed policies described in this section,
we considered a number of factors related to the program's current
participation options in light of the program's financial results and
stakeholders' feedback on program design, including the following.
First, we considered the program's existing policy allowing ACOs up
to 6 years of participation in a one-sided model. We have found that
the policy has shown limited success in encouraging ACOs to advance to
performance-based risk. By the fifth year of implementing the program,
only about 18 percent of the program's participating ACOs are under a
two-sided model, over half of which are participating in the Track 1+
Model (see Table 2).
As discussed in detail in the August 2018 proposed rule (see 83 FR
41916 through 41918), our experience with the program indicates that
ACOs in two-sided models generally perform better than ACOs that
participate under a one-sided model. For example, for performance year
2016, about 68 percent of Shared Savings Program ACOs in two-sided
models (15 of 22 ACOs) shared savings compared to 29 percent of Track 1
ACOs. For performance year 2015, prior to the first year of Track 3,
one of the three remaining Track 2 ACOs shared savings, while about 30
percent of Track 1 ACOs (118 of 389 ACOs) shared savings. For
performance year 2014, two of the three remaining Track 2 ACOs shared
savings while about 25 percent of Track 1 ACOs (84 of 330 ACOs) shared
savings. In the program's first year, concluding December 31, 2013, 40
percent of Track 2 ACOs (2 of 5 ACOs) compared to 23 percent of Track 1
ACOs (50 of 215 ACOs) shared savings. See Shared Savings Program
Accountable Care Organization Public Use Files, available at https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Downloadable-Public-Use-Files/SSPACO/index.html. These observations, in combination with
participation trends that show most ACOs prefer to remain in Track 1
for a second 3-year agreement period, suggests that a requirement for
ACOs to more rapidly transition to performance-based risk could be
effective in creating incentives for ACOs to more quickly meet the
program's goals.
The program's current design lacks a sufficiently incremental
progression to performance-based risk, the need for which is evidenced
by robust participation in the new Track 1+ Model. A significant issue
that contributes to some ACOs' reluctance to participate in Track 2 or
Track 3 is that the magnitude of potential losses is very high compared
to the ACO's degree of control over the total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries, particularly
when its ACO participants have relatively low total Medicare Parts A
and B FFS revenue. We are encouraged by the interest in the Track 1+
Model as indicated by the 55 Shared Savings Program ACOs participating
in the Model for the performance year beginning on January 1, 2018; the
largest group of Shared Savings Program ACOs to enter into performance-
based risk for a given performance year to date. Based on the number of
ACOs participating in the Track 1+ Model for performance year 2018, a
lower risk option appears to be important for Track 1 ACOs with
experience in the program seeking to transition to performance-based
risk, as well as ACOs seeking to enter an initial agreement period in
the program under a lower risk model.
Interest in the Track 1+ Model suggests that the opportunity to
participate in an Advanced APM while accepting more moderate levels of
risk (compared to Track 2 and Track 3) is an important financial model
design for ACOs. Allowing more manageable levels of risk within the
Shared Savings Program is an important pathway for helping
organizations to gain experience with managing risk as well as
participating in Advanced APMs under the Quality Payment Program. The
high uptake we have observed with the Track 1+ Model also suggests that
the current design of Track 1 may be unnecessarily generous since the
Track 1+ Model has the same level of upside as Track 1 but under which
ACOs must also assume performance-based risk.
Second, under the program's current design, CMS lacks adequate
tools to properly address ACOs with patterns of negative financial
performance. Track 1 ACOs are not liable for repaying any portion of
their losses to CMS, and therefore may have potentially weaker
incentives to improve quality and reduce growth in FFS expenditures
within the accountable care model. These ACOs may take advantage of the
potential benefits of continued program participation (including the
receipt of program data and the opportunity to enter into certain
contracting arrangements with ACO participants and ACO providers/
suppliers in connection with their participation in the Shared Savings
Program), without providing a meaningful benefit to the Medicare
program. ACOs under two-sided models may similarly benefit from program
participation and seek to continue their participation despite owing
shared losses.
Third, differences in performance of ACOs indicate a pattern where
low revenue ACOs outperformed high revenue ACOs. As discussed in the
August 2018 proposed rule (see 83 FR 41916 through 41918), we have
observed a pattern of performance, across tracks and performance years,
where low revenue ACOs show better average results compared to high
revenue ACOs. We explained that high revenue ACOs, which typically
include hospitals, have a greater opportunity to control assigned
beneficiaries' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures, as they
coordinate a larger portion of the assigned beneficiaries' care across
care settings, and have the potential to perform better than what has
been demonstrated in performance trends from 2012 through 2016. We
concluded that the trends in performance by high revenue ACOs in
relation to their expected capacity to control growth in expenditures
are indications that these ACOs' performance would improve through
greater incentives, principally a requirement to take on higher levels
of performance-based risk, and thus drive change in FFS utilization for
their Medicare FFS populations. This conclusion is further supported by
our initial experience with the Track 1+ Model, for which our
preliminary findings support the conclusion that the degree of control
an ACO has over expenditures for its assigned beneficiaries is an
indication of the level of performance-based risk an ACO is prepared to
accept and manage, where control is determined by the relationship
between ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue and
the total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's
assigned beneficiaries. Our experience with the Track 1+ Model has also
shown that ACO participants' total Medicare
[[Page 67832]]
Parts A and B FFS revenue as a percentage of the total Medicare Parts A
and B FFS expenditures of the assigned beneficiaries can serve as a
proxy for ACO composition (that is, whether the ACO includes one or
more institutional providers as an ACO participant, and therefore is
likely to control a greater share of Medicare Parts A and B FFS
expenditures and to have greater ability to coordinate care across
settings for its assigned beneficiaries).
Fourth, permitting choice of level of risk and assignment
methodology within an ACO's agreement period would create redundancy in
some participation options, and eliminating this redundancy would allow
CMS to streamline the number of tracks offered while allowing ACOs
greater flexibility to design their participation to meet the needs of
their organizations. ACOs and stakeholders have indicated a strong
preference for maintaining an option to select preliminary prospective
assignment with retrospective reconciliation as an alternative to
prospective assignment for ACOs under performance-based risk within the
Shared Savings Program. We considered what would occur if we retained
Track 2 in addition to the ENHANCED track and offered a choice of
prospective assignment and preliminary prospective assignment (see
section II.A.4.c. of this final rule) for both tracks. We stated that
ACOs prepared to accept higher levels of benchmark-based risk would be
more likely to enter the ENHANCED track (which allows the greatest risk
and potential reward). This is suggested by participation statistics,
where 8 ACOs are participating in Track 2 compared to the 38 ACOs
participating in Track 3 as of January 1, 2018. We noted that for
agreement periods beginning in 2018, only 2 ACOs entered Track 2, both
of which had deferred renewal in 2017, while 4 ACOs entered Track 3
(for their first or second agreement period). ACOs may be continuing to
pick Track 2 because of the preliminary prospective assignment
methodology, and we would expect participation in Track 2 to decline
further if we finalize the proposal to allow a choice of assignment
methodology in the ENHANCED track, since we would expect ACOs ready for
higher risk (that is, a level of risk that is higher than the highest
level of risk and potential reward under the proposed BASIC track) to
prefer the ENHANCED track over Track 2.
Fifth, longer agreement periods could improve program incentives
and support ACOs' transition into performance-based risk when coupled
with changes to improve the accuracy of the program's benchmarking
methodology. Extending agreement periods for more than 3 years could
provide more certainty over benchmarks and in turn give ACOs a greater
chance to succeed in the program by allowing them more time to
understand their performance, gain experience and implement redesigned
care processes before rebasing of the ACO's historical benchmark.
Shared Savings Program results show that ACOs tend to perform better
the longer they remain in the program. Further, under longer agreement
periods, historical benchmarks would become more predictable, since the
benchmark would continue to be based on the expenditures for
beneficiaries who would have been assigned to the ACO in the 3 most
recent years prior to the start of the ACO's agreement period (see
Sec. Sec. 425.602(a) and 425.603(c)) and the benchmark would be risk
adjusted and updated each performance year relative to benchmark year
3. However, a number of factors can affect the amount of the benchmark,
and therefore its predictability, during the agreement period
regardless of whether the agreement period spans 3 or 5 years,
including: Adjustments to the benchmark during the ACO's agreement
period resulting from changes in the ACO's certified ACO participant
list and regulatory changes to the assignment methodology; as well as
variation in the benchmark value that occurs each performance year as a
result of annual risk adjustment to the ACO's benchmark (Sec. Sec.
425.602(a)(9) and 425.603(c)(10)) and annual benchmark updates
(Sec. Sec. 425.602(b) and 425.603(d)). We explained that the proposed
approach to incorporating factors based on regional FFS expenditures in
establishing, adjusting and updating the benchmark beginning with the
ACO's first agreement period (discussed in section II.D. of this final
rule) would result in more accurate benchmarks. This improved accuracy
of benchmarks would mitigate the impact of the more generous updated
benchmarks that could result in the later years of longer agreement
periods.
In summary, taking these factors into consideration, we proposed to
redesign the program's participation options by discontinuing Track 1,
Track 2 and the deferred renewal option, and instead offering two
tracks that eligible ACOs would enter into for an agreement period of
at least 5 years: (1) BASIC track, which would include an option for
eligible ACOs to begin participation under a one-sided model and
incrementally phase-in risk (calculated based on ACO participant
revenue and capped at a percentage of the ACO's updated benchmark) and
potential reward over the course of a single agreement period, an
approach referred to as a glide path; and (2) ENHANCED track, based on
the program's existing Track 3, for ACOs that take on the highest level
of risk and potential reward.
We proposed to require ACOs to enter one of two tracks for
agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years
(as described in section II.A.7. of this final rule): Either the
ENHANCED track, which would be based on Track 3 as currently designed
and implemented under Sec. 425.610, or the new BASIC track, which
would offer eligible ACOs a glide path from a one-sided model to
incrementally higher performance-based risk. (We referred to this
participation option for eligible ACOs entering the BASIC track as the
BASIC track's glide path, or simply the glide path.)
We proposed to add a new provision to the Shared Savings Program
regulations at Sec. 425.605 to establish the requirements for this
BASIC track. The BASIC track would offer lower levels of risk compared
to the levels of risk currently offered in Track 2 and Track 3, and the
same maximum level of risk as offered under the Track 1+ Model.
Compared to the design of Track 1, this glide path approach, which
requires assumption of gently increasing levels of risk and potential
reward beginning no later than an ACO's fourth performance year under
the BASIC track for agreement periods starting on July 1, 2019 or third
performance year under the BASIC track for agreement periods starting
in 2020 and all subsequent years, could provide stronger incentives for
ACOs to improve their performance.
For agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent
years, we proposed to modify the regulations at Sec. Sec. 425.600 and
425.610 to designate Track 3 as the ENHANCED track. We proposed that
all references to the ENHANCED track in the program's regulations would
be deemed to include Track 3. We explained that we intend references to
the ENHANCED track to apply to Track 3 ACOs, unless otherwise noted.
We explained that as part of the redesign of the program's
participation options, it is timely to provide the program's tracks
with more descriptive and meaningful names. ``Enhanced'' is indicative
of the increased levels of risk and potential reward available to ACOs
under the current design of Track 3, the new tools and flexibilities
available to performance-based risk ACOs, and the relative incentives
for ACOs under this
[[Page 67833]]
financial model designed to improve the quality of care for their
assigned beneficiaries (for example, through the availability of the
highest sharing rates based on quality performance under the program)
and their potential to drive towards reduced costs for Medicare FFS
beneficiaries and therefore increased savings for the Medicare Trust
Funds. In contrast, ``basic'' suggests a foundational level, which is
reflected in the opportunity under the BASIC track to provide a
starting point for ACOs on a pathway to success from a one-sided shared
savings model to two-sided risk.
We proposed that for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019,
the length of the agreement would be 5 years and 6 months. For
agreement periods beginning on January 1, 2020, and in subsequent
years, the length of the agreement would be 5 years.
In the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59946) we finalized a
revision to the definition of ``agreement period'' to broadly mean the
term of the participation agreement. For consistency, we also revised
the heading in Sec. 425.200(b) from ``term of the participation
agreement'' to ``agreement period,'' based on the modification to the
definition of ``agreement period'' in Sec. 425.20.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41799), we proposed to
specify the term of participation agreements beginning on July 1, 2019
and in subsequent years in revisions to Sec. 425.200, which currently
specifies the term of the participation agreement for each agreement
start date since the beginning of the program.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41800), we also proposed to
revise Sec. 425.502(e)(4)(v), specifying calculation of the quality
improvement reward as part of determining the ACO's quality score,
which includes language based on 3-year agreement periods. Through
these revisions, we would specify that the comparison for performance
in the first year of the new agreement period would be the last year in
the previous agreement period, rather than the third year of the
previous agreement period.
The regulation on renewal of participation agreements (Sec.
425.224(b)) includes criteria regarding an ACO's quality performance
and repayment of shared losses that focus on specific years in the
ACO's prior 3-year agreement period. We discussed proposals to revise
these evaluation criteria to be more relevant to assessing prior
participation of ACOs under an agreement period of at least 5 years,
among other factors (83 FR 41823 through 41825).
For ACOs entering agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and
in subsequent years, we proposed to allow ACOs annually to elect the
beneficiary assignment methodology (preliminary prospective assignment
with retrospective reconciliation, or prospective assignment) to apply
for each remaining performance year within their agreement period. See
discussion in section II.A.4.c. of this final rule.
For ACOs entering agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and
in subsequent years, we proposed to allow eligible ACOs in the BASIC
track's glide path the option to elect entry into a higher level of
risk and potential reward under the BASIC track for each performance
year within their agreement period. See the discussion in section
II.A.4.b. of this final rule.
We proposed to discontinue Track 1 as a participation option for
the reasons described elsewhere in this section. We proposed to amend
Sec. 425.600 to limit availability of Track 1 to agreement periods
beginning before July 1, 2019.
We proposed to discontinue Track 2 as a participation option. We
proposed to amend Sec. 425.600 to limit availability of Track 2 to
agreement periods beginning before July 1, 2019. We based these
proposals on the following considerations.
For one, the proposal to allow ACOs to select their assignment
methodology (section II.A.4.c. of this final rule) and the availability
of the proposed BASIC track with relatively low levels of risk compared
to the ENHANCED track would ensure the continued availability of a
participation option with moderate levels of risk and potential reward
in combination with the optional availability of the preliminary
prospective beneficiary assignment in the absence of Track 2. We
explained that maintaining Track 2 as a participation option between
the lower risk of the proposed BASIC track and the higher risk of the
ENHANCED track would create redundancy in participation options, while
removing Track 2 would offer an opportunity to streamline the tracks
offered.
Although Track 2 was the initial two-sided model of the Shared
Savings Program, the statistics on Shared Savings Program participation
by track (and in the Track 1+ Model) summarized in Table 2 show few
ACOs entering and completing their risk bearing agreement period under
Track 2 in recent years, and suggest that ACOs prefer either a lower
level of risk and potential reward under the Track 1+ Model or a higher
level of risk and potential reward under Track 3 than the Track 2 level
of risk and potential reward.
Further, under the proposed modifications to the regulations (see
section II.A.5.c. of this final rule), Track 2 ACOs prepared to take on
higher risk would have the option to elect to enter the ENHANCED track
by completing their agreement period in Track 2 and applying to renew
for a subsequent agreement period under the ENHANCED track or by
voluntarily terminating their current 3-year agreement and entering a
new agreement period under the ENHANCED track, without waiting until
the expiration of their current 3-year agreement period. Certain Track
2 ACOs that may not be prepared for the higher level of risk under the
ENHANCED track could instead elect to enter the proposed BASIC track at
the highest level of risk and potential reward, under the same
circumstances.
We proposed to discontinue the policy that allows Track 1 ACOs in
their first agreement period to defer renewal for a second agreement
period in a two-sided model by 1 year, to remain in their current
agreement period for a fourth performance year, and to also defer
benchmark rebasing. We proposed to amend Sec. 425.200(e) to
discontinue the deferred renewal option, so that it would be available
to only those Track 1 ACOs that began a first agreement period in 2014
or 2015 and have already renewed their participation agreement under
the deferred renewal option, and therefore this option would not be
available to Track 1 ACOs seeking to renew for a second agreement
period beginning on July 1, 2019, or in subsequent years. We proposed
to amend Sec. 425.200(b)(3) to specify that the extension of a first
agreement period in Track 1 under the deferred renewal option is
available only for ACOs that began a first agreement period in 2014 or
2015 and therefore deferred renewal in 2017 or 2018 (respectively). We
considered the following issues in developing this proposal.
For one, continued availability of this option is inconsistent with
our proposed redesign of the program, which encourages rapid transition
to performance-based risk and requires ACOs on the BASIC track's glide
path to enter performance-based risk within their first agreement
period under the BASIC track.
Deferral of benchmark rebasing was likely a factor in some ACOs'
decisions to defer renewal, particularly for ACOs concerned about the
effects of the rebasing methodology on their benchmark. Under the
proposal to extend the length of agreement periods
[[Page 67834]]
from 3 years to not less than 5 years, benchmark rebasing would be
delayed by 2 years (relative to a 3-year agreement), rather than 1
year, as provided under the current deferred renewal policy.
Eliminating the deferred renewal option would streamline the
program's participation options and operations. Very few ACOs have
elected the deferred renewal participation option, with only 8 ACOs
that began participating in the program in either 2014 or 2015 renewing
their Shared Savings Program agreement under this option to defer entry
into a second agreement period under performance-based risk until 2018
or 2019, respectively. We stated that the very low uptake of this
option demonstrates that it is not effective at facilitating ACOs'
transition to performance-based risk. The proposed timing of
applicability would prevent ACOs from electing to defer renewal in 2019
for a second agreement period beginning in 2020.
Further, as discussed in section II.A.5.c. of this final rule, we
proposed to discontinue the ``sit-out'' period under Sec. 425.222(a),
which is cross-referenced in the regulation at Sec. 425.200(e)
establishing the deferred renewal option. Under the proposed
modifications to Sec. 425.222(a), ACOs that have already been approved
to defer renewal until 2019 under this participation option (ACOs with
2015 start dates in the Shared Savings Program that deferred entering a
second agreement period under two-sided risk until January 1, 2019),
would have the option of terminating their participation agreement for
their second agreement period under Track 2 or Track 3 and applying to
enter the BASIC track at the highest level of risk and potential reward
(Level E), or the ENHANCED track, for a new agreement period.
We proposed to modify the Shared Savings Program participation
options to offer a new performance-based risk track using the
Secretary's authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act. In the
August 2018 proposed rule, we explained use of our authority under
section 1899(i)(3) of the Act (83 FR 41801). In order to add the BASIC
track, we must determine that it will improve the quality and
efficiency of items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries,
without additional program expenditures. Consistent with our earlier
discussions of the use of this authority to establish the current two-
sided models in the Shared Savings Program (see 76 FR 67904 and 80 FR
32771), we explained that the BASIC track would provide an additional
opportunity for organizations to enter a risk-sharing arrangement and
accept greater responsibility for beneficiary care. We explained that
the proposed restructuring of participation options, more generally,
would help ACOs transition to performance-based risk more quickly than
under the program's current design. Under the proposed program redesign
we would eliminate Track 1 (under which a one-sided model currently is
available for up to 6 years), offering instead a glide path with up to
2 performance years under a one-sided model (three, for ACOs that enter
the glide path on July 1, 2019), followed by the incremental phase-in
of risk and increasing potential for reward over the remaining 3
performance years of the agreement period. We proposed that ACOs that
previously participated in Track 1, or new ACOs identified as re-
entering ACOs because more than 50 percent of their ACO participants
have recent prior experience in a Track 1 ACO, entering the BASIC
track's glide path would be eligible for a single performance year
under a one-sided model (two, for ACOs that enter the glide path on
July 1, 2019). We proposed a one-time exception to be specified in
revisions to Sec. 425.600, under which the automatic advancement
policy would not apply to the second performance year for an ACO
entering the BASIC track's glide path for an agreement period beginning
on July 1, 2019. For performance year 2020, the ACO may remain in the
same level of the BASIC track's glide path that it entered for the
performance year beginning on July 1, 2019 (6-month period). The ACO
would be automatically advanced to the next level of the BASIC track's
glide path at the start of performance year 2021 and all subsequent
performance years of the agreement period, unless the ACO elects to
advance to a higher level of risk and potential reward under the glide
path more quickly, as proposed in section II.A.4.b. of this final rule.
The glide path concludes with the ACO entering a level of potential
reward that is the same as is currently available under Track 1, with a
level of risk that is similar to the lesser of either the revenue-based
or benchmark-based loss sharing limit under the Track 1+ Model.
Further, we realized that a significant incentive for ACOs to
transition more quickly to the highest level of risk and reward under
the BASIC track would be the opportunity to participate in an Advanced
APM for purposes of the Quality Payment Program. Under the BASIC
track's Level E, an ACO's eligible clinicians would have the
opportunity to receive APM Incentive Payments and ultimately higher fee
schedule updates starting in 2026, in the payment year corresponding to
each performance year in which they attain QP status.
We explained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis section of the
proposed rule (83 FR 41927) that the proposed BASIC track is expected
to increase participation in performance-based risk by ACOs that may
not otherwise take on the higher exposure to risk required in the
ENHANCED track (or in the current Track 2). Such added participation in
performance-based risk is expected to include a significant number of
low revenue ACOs, including physician-led ACOs. These ACOs have shown
stronger performance in the first years of the program despite mainly
opting to participate in Track 1. Furthermore, the option for BASIC
track ACOs to progress gradually toward risk within a single agreement
period or accelerate more quickly to the BASIC track's Level E is
expected to further expand eventual participation in performance-based
risk by ACOs that would otherwise hesitate to immediately transition to
this level of risk because of uncertainty related to benchmark
rebasing.
Therefore, adding the BASIC track as a participation option under
the Shared Savings Program would not likely result in an increase in
spending beyond the expenditures that would otherwise occur under the
statutory payment methodology in section 1899(d). Further, we expected
that adding the BASIC track would continue to lead to improvement in
the quality of care furnished to Medicare FFS beneficiaries because
participating ACOs would have an incentive to perform well on the
quality measures in order to maximize the shared savings they may
receive and minimize any shared losses they must pay.
The proposed rule included other policy proposals that require that
we reassess the policies adopted under the authority of section
1899(i)(3) of the Act to ensure that they comply with the requirements
under section 1899(i)(3)(B) of the Act. As described in the August 2018
proposed rule (83 FR 41927), the elimination of Track 2 as an on-going
participation option, the addition of the BASIC track, the benchmarking
changes (see section II.D. of this final rule), and the proposal to
determine shared savings and shared losses for the 6-month performance
years starting on January 1, 2019, and July 1, 2019, using expenditures
for the entire CY 2019 and then pro-rating these amounts to reflect the
shorter performance year (see section II.A.7. of this final rule, as
well as the November 2018 final rule), require the use of our authority
under
[[Page 67835]]
section 1899(i) of the Act. These proposed changes to our payment
methodology would not be expected to result in a situation in which all
policies adopted under the authority of section 1899(i) of the Act,
when taken together, result in more spending under the program than
would have resulted under the statutory payment methodology in section
1899(d) of the Act. We noted that we would continue to reexamine this
projection in the future to ensure that the requirement under section
1899(i)(3)(B) of the Act that an alternative payment model not result
in additional program expenditures continues to be satisfied. In the
event that we later determine that the payment model established under
section 1899(i)(3) of the Act no longer meets this requirement, we
would undertake additional notice and comment rulemaking to make
adjustments to the payment model to assure continued compliance with
the statutory requirements.
As discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis section of this
final rule (see section V), we believe the BASIC track meets the
requirements for use of our authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the
Act. The considerations we previously described, as included in the
August 2018 proposed rule and the November 2018 final rule (83 FR
59949), were relevant in making this determination. Specifically, we do
not believe that the BASIC track, as finalized in this section of this
final rule, will result in an increase in spending beyond the
expenditures that would otherwise occur under the statutory payment
methodology in section 1899(d), and adding the BASIC track would
continue to lead to improvement in the quality of care furnished to
Medicare FFS beneficiaries.
Comment: We received feedback from several commenters that favored
the proposed Shared Savings Program two track redesign and the
incremental transition to two-sided risk, including effectively
consolidating Track 1 and the Track 1+ Model into the single BASIC
track and the preservation of Track 3 in the ENHANCED track. Generally,
commenters supported the overall framework and supported CMS' proposal
to pursue a tiered approach to introducing downside financial risk for
ACOs. One commenter in support of the proposal noted that the renamed
tracks are ``more descriptive'' than the current ones and applauded the
permanent inclusion of the Track 1+ Model (described as Level E of the
BASIC track). One commenter stated that the approach would strike an
appropriate balance between encouraging the transition to performance-
based risk while not creating an undue burden on clinicians and ACOs as
they make this transition. Another commenter believed that the new
transition from one-sided to two-sided risk within the BASIC track
would reward participants for providing beneficiaries with good care
while holding ACOs accountable for potential losses. Another commenter
believed that the proposed rule would provide an opportunity to make
changes to the Medicare program that advance high-quality, affordable,
and value-based care to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs.
One commenter strongly supported and shared CMS' goal of
strengthening the Shared Savings Program to make it successful for
patients, providers, and Medicare over the long-term so that Medicare
beneficiaries can benefit from the advantage of high-quality, cost-
efficient, and highly coordinated care. Another commenter urged CMS to
continue providing a variety of ways to participate in the Shared
Savings Program, including different tracks and levels of risk. The
commenter stated that each organization is unique and will follow its
own path to gain experience in redesigning care processes, learning
where to appropriately direct resources so that its patients can
receive patient-centered, team-based, and integrated healthcare, while
at the same time, providing system savings to programs, patients and
healthcare professionals.
However, many commenters disagreed with the more aggressive
transition of ACOs to performance-based risk under the proposed program
redesign. Some commenters cautioned that although the requirement that
all ACOs undertake two-sided risk at some point during their
participation agreement may improve the performance of the ACOs that
continue to participate in the Shared Savings Program, it may also
reduce ACO participation in the program. Several commenters expressed
concern that the change in program requirements may cause ACOs to end
their participation with the Shared Savings Program and create a
barrier to entry for ACOs to join the program.
One commenter recommended that CMS carefully monitor Shared Savings
Program participation and change course if participation falls
precipitously. Several commenters expressed concern that the rapid
assumption of significant levels of risk by ACOs would discourage new
participants and impede current ACOs' ability to make patient-centered
infrastructure investments that are necessary for successful
participation. Another commenter believed that reducing the amount of
time permitted in upside only programs is ill advised and jeopardizes
ACOs' continued participation.
Response: We appreciate the support of some commenters favoring the
Shared Savings Program redesign and the more rapid transition from one-
sided to two-sided risk. We continue to believe that the proposed
policies for the new BASIC track and the ENHANCED track generally
strike an appropriate balance between risk and reward, appropriately
distinguish available participation options by ACO and ACO participant
characteristics, and will be effective in creating incentives for
better coordinating care and assisting ACOs with the transition to
risk. We continue to believe that models under which ACOs bear a degree
of financial risk hold greater potential than one-sided models to
induce more meaningful systematic change, promote accountability for a
patient population and coordination of patient medical care, and
encourage investment in redesigned care processes.
In response to commenters' concerns about the potential impact of
the proposed redesign on program participation, we note the discussion
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (section V of this final rule), where
we describe that potentially fewer new ACOs may enter the program,
although ACOs within current agreement periods may be more likely to
continue their participation. However, in general, we believe that the
benefits associated with making the BASIC track's glide path available
to eligible ACOs, including the incremental increase in risk and
reward, outweigh the risk of reduced ACO participation. With respect to
the concerns about reduced ACO participation in the program, the
potential effects of the proposed policies regarding the required
transition to a two-sided model on participation decisions must be
viewed together with other proposed program design elements that factor
into participation decisions, including the methodology used to set and
reset the ACO's historical benchmark; the approach used to calculate
the ACO's shared savings and/or shared losses; the level of
performance-based risk for ACOs; availability of the SNF 3-Day Rule
Waiver, expanded coverage of telehealth services under section 1899(l)
of the Act and Beneficiary Incentive Program; and the choice of
methodologies for assigning beneficiaries to the ACO.
Further, we believe that offering a glide path to transition ACOs
to a two-
[[Page 67836]]
sided model through progressive levels of increasing risk and potential
reward is responsive to commenters' requests for additional program
options for ACOs, including those less experienced with performance-
based risk in an accountable care model. We believe that the addition
of the new BASIC track, including a glide path with multiple levels of
risk and potential reward, will help ACOs inexperienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives to match their
infrastructure and organizational readiness to an available
participation option to support their achievement of the program's
goals of better care for individuals, better health for populations,
and lower growth in Medicare Parts A and B expenditures.
Further, as described elsewhere in this final rule, in response to
commenters' suggestions, we are finalizing several modifications to our
proposals to further smooth ACOs' transitions to performance-based
risk. For example, as described in section II.A.5.c. of this final
rule, we are finalizing a policy modification to allow additional
flexibility for new ACO legal entities that qualify as low revenue ACOs
and inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives,
to participate for up to 3 performance years under a one-sided model (4
performance years in the case of ACOs entering an agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019) of the BASIC track's glide path before
transitioning to Level E (the highest level of risk and potential
reward under the BASIC track). We believe that this option may address
some commenters' concerns. For instance, this option could be an
attractive alternative to new ACOs that are inexperienced with the
Shared Savings Program, by providing an additional year for the ACO to
earn shared savings payments and make patient-centered infrastructure
investments that would support their successful participation under a
two-sided model. Additionally, as described in section II.A.6.c. of
this final rule, we are finalizing modifications to the approach for
determining repayment mechanism arrangement amounts to potentially
reduce the burden of these arrangements for both lower-revenue and
higher-revenue ACOs participating in the ENHANCED track.
We will continue to monitor program participation and consider
further refinements to the program's participation options as we gain
experience with implementing the redesigned program.
Comment: As we summarize and respond to elsewhere in this section
of this final rule, some commenters expressed concerns about the high
level of risk under the ENHANCED track, and suggested that CMS allow
for additional participation options that would smooth the transition
from level of risk and potential reward within Level E of the BASIC
track to the ENHANCED track. Some of these comments included
suggestions for alternative designs of the ENHANCED track. Several
commenters offered suggestions for how to modify the design of the
financial model of, or participation options under, the ENHANCED track.
A few commenters suggested that CMS should increase the shared savings
rate to 80 percent for each performance year under the ENHANCED track
(the same as the Next Generation ACO Model) and increase the
performance payment limits over the agreement period.
Response: We continue to believe it is important to maintain a
participation option with the level of risk and potential reward as
currently available under Track 3, proposed to be the ENHANCED track
under the redesign of the program's participation options. We believe
that the opportunity for greater shared savings as compared to Level E
of the BASIC track will encourage ACOs to undertake greater
performance-based risk under the ENHANCED track, as well as provide a
suitable participation option for ACOs more experienced with the
accountable care model.
Further, the design of the ENHANCED track offers symmetrical levels
of risk and reward. To maintain this overall design, to increase the
level of reward for the ENHANCED track (as suggested by one commenter),
we would likewise need to consider increasing the level of risk as
well. In light of commenters' concerns about the level of risk in the
design of this track, we are concerned about changing the design of the
ENHANCED track to include even higher levels of risk and potential
reward.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the ENHANCED track
should include a revenue-based loss sharing limit. One commenter
recommended that CMS should incorporate a revenue-based loss sharing
limit into the ENHANCED track, similar to the BASIC track design. A few
commenters suggested that CMS apply a loss sharing limit that is the
lesser of 20 percent of the ACO participant's revenue or 10 percent of
updated benchmark for the ENHANCED track.
Response: We decline at this time to adopt the commenters'
suggestion to include an opportunity for ENHANCED track ACOs to qualify
for a revenue-based loss sharing limit. The loss sharing limit under
the ENHANCED track will remain 15 percent of the ACO's updated
benchmark. We continue to believe that ACOs participating under higher
levels of risk and reward can drive more meaningful systematic change
in the behavior of providers and suppliers towards meeting the
program's goals. As we describe elsewhere in this final rule, we
continue to believe that all ACOs should transition to the level of
risk and reward under the ENHANCED track. Therefore, we do not believe
it is necessary to decrease the overall downside risk in the ENHANCED
track or develop a financial model within the ENHANCED track, similar
to the design of the two-sided models of the BASIC track. Thus, we
decline to apply the revenue-based loss sharing limit to the ENHANCED
track, which would potentially provide a relatively lower level of risk
and weaken the incentives of the track's financial model. We note that,
as discussed in section II.A.6.c. of this final rule, we are modifying
the methodology for calculating repayment mechanism amounts for
ENHANCED track ACOs, so that lower-revenue ACOs may be eligible for
potentially lower repayment mechanism amounts under a revenue-based
calculation. We believe this approach may assist ACOs by potentially
reducing the financial burden of setting aside capital to establish a
repayment mechanism before transitioning to greater risk under the
ENHANCED track.
Comment: Some commenters supported the consideration of allowing a
participation option that would provide a gentler transition from the
level of risk and potential reward under the BASIC track's Level E and
the level of risk and potential reward under the ENHANCED track, which
we described and sought comment on in section II.A.5.b. of the August
2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41818). Several commenters expressed concern
about the steep increase in risk between the BASIC track's Level E and
the ENHANCED track. Several commenters called attention to the
difference between the maximum amount of loss liability under the BASIC
track's Level E (4 percent of the ACO's updated historical benchmark)
and the ENHANCED track (15 percent of the ACO's updated historical
benchmark). Several commenters indicated the likelihood of decreasing
participation from low revenue ACOs if they are required to take on the
level of two-sided risk in the ENHANCED track. One commenter stated
that this significant increase in risk may present a barrier to
successful
[[Page 67837]]
participation by smaller and less experienced ACOs. One commenter,
concerned about the increase in risk between Level E of the BASIC track
and the ENHANCED track, indicated that differences in exposure to loss
liability and the repayment mechanism requirements between these tracks
are unbalanced. One commenter, comparing the ENHANCED track to the
Pioneer ACO model, cautioned CMS that we should expect attrition from
the ENHANCED track based on the Pioneer ACO model experience.
Several commenters suggested alternatives to ease the transition
into risk from BASIC Level E to the ENHANCED track. Commenters
suggested alternative participation options to create a series of
gradual increases in both risk and reward, rather than a few inflection
points to significantly different levels of risk. For example, creating
a glide path to the highest risk level within the ENHANCED track or
offer an additional track to help bridge the gap between the BASIC
track and ENHANCED track that offers more options for gradual risk
increases between Level E of the BASIC track and the ENHANCED track.
Commenters' specific suggestions included the following:
Establishing a glide path from Level E of the BASIC
track to the ENHANCED track based on the design of Track 2. One
commenter suggested that CMS create a ``BASIC Level E+'' alternative
that mimics the maximum shared savings and loss rates of the current
Track 2. It would have an up to 60 percent maximum shared savings
rate and a loss sharing rate that is not less than 40 percent but
would not exceed 60 percent and would qualify as an Advanced APM.
Installing Track 2 as a three year glide path for all
ACO entities within the ENHANCED track.
Creating a voluntary intermediate track with a loss
sharing limit of 8 percent of the ACO's updated benchmark and shared
savings rate of 65 percent.
Phasing-in the loss sharing limits within the ENHANCED
track incrementally. One commenter suggested that the loss sharing
limits be phased-in at 7 percent of benchmark in year 1, 10 percent
in year 2, and then 15 percent in years 3, 4, and 5. Another
commenter suggested a slower phase-in of the loss sharing limit,
with a more incremental increase in the percentage each performance
year.
One commenter encouraged CMS to continue to assess the ability of
low revenue ACOs to assume higher levels of downside risk. According to
the commenter, CMS should also evaluate the success rates of low
revenue ACOs that move to the ENHANCED track and monitor the number of
ACOs that return to the BASIC track, particularly due to inability to
assume higher levels of risk.
Response: We continue to believe that the transition to risk from
Level E of the BASIC track to the ENHANCED track best supports
achieving our goal of driving more meaningful systematic change in
providers' and suppliers' behavior towards achieving the program's
goals. Allowing more manageable levels of risk within the BASIC track's
glide path within the Shared Savings Program is an important pathway
for helping organizations gain experience with managing risk as well as
participating in Advanced APMs under the Quality Payment Program. We
also recognize that it may be more difficult for low revenue ACOs to
transition to higher levels of risk and potential reward and are
therefore allowing eligible low revenue ACOs the opportunity to
participate in the BASIC track for up to two agreement periods before
advancing to the ENHANCED track (as discussed in section II.A.5.b.(2)
of this final rule). As discussed in section II.A.6.c of this final
rule, we are modifying our approach to determining the amount of the
repayment mechanism for ENHANCED track ACOs, to allow for potentially
lower estimated amounts for lower-revenue ACOs, to support their
transition to the ENHANCED track. Although the financial model of the
ENHANCED track will remain the same as the design of Track 3, the
modified repayment mechanism arrangement estimation approach may reduce
the financial burden on ACOs of establishing these arrangements, for
example in setting aside capital, when transitioning to greater risk.
One purpose of the proposed redesign is to streamline participation
options under the Shared Savings Program. At this time, and considering
the factors we described in this response as well as previous comment
responses in this section, we decline to establish additional
participation options that would include a bridge or intermediate track
between Level E of the BASIC track and the ENHANCED track.
Specifically, we decline the suggestion to modify the design of the
ENHANCED track at this time to more closely resemble the design of
Track 2, with a phase-in of the loss sharing limits over a single
agreement period (as suggested by one commenter). As explained
elsewhere in this final rule we are finalizing our proposal to
discontinue Track 2, in part reflective of the reduced rates of
participation in this track, and the availability of the BASIC track
with relatively lower levels of risk and reward that, for ACOs eligible
for the glide path, gradually increase over the term of the agreement
period.
As suggested by the commenter, we agree with the need to continue
to monitor the redesigned participation options, including with respect
to low revenue ACOs that move to the ENHANCED track as well as
performance by high revenue ACOs under the ENHANCED track. We note that
as described in section II.A.5.c of this final rule, we are finalizing
a policy to monitor ACOs for composition changes during their agreement
period that would affect their participation options.
Comment: Many commenters opposed the proposal to discontinue Track
1 or an equivalent option that would allow for ACOs to participate for
an entire agreement period, or up to 6 performance years (to match the
two 3-year agreement periods that are currently allowed), under a one-
sided model. Many of these commenters believed that the current Track 1
is the only viable opportunity for rural ACOs to participate in a
Medicare value-based payment model. The comments stated that although
there are other options for health care providers to work together to
address the cost and quality of care, collaborating in a Shared Savings
Program ACO remains the most viable option for ACO participants,
specifically independent rural healthcare organizations. One commenter
stated that as a non-profit, low revenue ACO, they may be forced out of
the Shared Savings Program because they lack the capital required for
the repayment mechanism. Another commenter strongly opposed the
elimination of Track 1 and urged its retention for physician-led
organizations. The commenter proposed that if CMS chose to retain Track
1, it would recommend modifications to increase net savings for
Medicare, such as terminating ACOs that have not achieved savings over
several years, reducing shared savings payments for ACOs that fail to
meet quality performance standards, or allowing ACOs to be accountable
only for the spending they control versus the total cost of care.
A few commenters asserted that CMS does not have authority under
section 1899(i) of the Act to discontinue Track 1 and replace it with
the BASIC track. These commenters noted that section 1899(i)(2)(B) of
the Act says that ``payments to an ACO for items and services . . . for
beneficiaries for a year . . . shall be established in a manner that
does not result in spending more for such ACO for such beneficiaries
than would otherwise be expended for such ACO for such beneficiaries
for such year
[[Page 67838]]
if the model were not implemented.'' As a result, the commenters
contend that the statute is not referring to a measure of overall
program spending, but to the change in spending for each individual
ACO.
Further, these commenters noted that the current Track 1 model
meets the statutory requirements for determining shared savings
payments under section 1899(d) of the Act. Section 1899(i) of the Act
permits CMS to use partial capitation or other payment models instead
of the shared savings approach under section 1899(d). However, one of
the requirements for both of these other payment models is that
spending cannot be more for such an ACO than would otherwise be
expended for such ACO if the model were not implemented. In the
proposed BASIC track and ENHANCED track, if Medicare spending exceeds
an ACO's benchmark, the ACO would be required to repay a portion of the
difference but not the full amount. Because the ACO would not be
required to repay the full increase, these commenters assert that
Medicare would spend more for that ACO than it would otherwise have
spent and, as a result, the two-sided payment model under the proposed
BASIC track and ENHANCED track does not satisfy the statutory
requirement in section 1899(i) of the Act.
Response: After evaluating commenters' concerns related to
discontinuing Track 1, and as further detailed in section II.A.5 of
this final rule, we are modifying our proposals and are finalizing an
approach that would allow new legal entities that are low revenue ACOs
and inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives
the option to elect an additional year in a one-sided model of the
BASIC track's glide path, for a total of 3 performance years in a one-
sided model (or 4 performance years in the case of ACOs entering an
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019). The ACO would enter the
glide path at Level A, and automatically advance to Level B. Prior to
the automatic advancement of the ACO to Level C, an eligible ACO may
elect to remain in Level B for another performance year, and then be
automatically advanced to Level E for the remaining two years. As we
discuss in section II.A.3 of this final rule, we are also modifying our
proposals regarding the design of the BASIC track's glide path in order
to increase the final shared savings rate to 40 percent for one-sided
levels (Levels A and B) and allow for a 50 percent shared savings rate
for two-sided levels (Levels C, D, and E) to further incentivize ACOs
to move to risk while also providing the opportunity for ACOs to share
in a greater percentage of savings to support their ongoing operating
costs.
We believe this approach will allow for a smoother progression to
two-sided risk within the BASIC track's glide path, particularly for
new legal entities that are low revenue ACOs and inexperienced with the
Shared Savings Program and other Medicare ACO initiatives. We also note
that, under the policies we are adopting in this final rule, eligible
ACOs will have the opportunity to participate for up to 3 performance
years (or 4 performance years in the case of ACOs entering an agreement
period beginning on July 1, 2019) under a one-sided model of
approximately the same design as is currently offered in Track 1. This
approach allows an ACO to benefit from the stability and predictability
of their benchmark when moving to two-sided risk within the same
agreement period.
However, we disagree with commenters on the need to allow ACOs to
continue under a one-sided model for longer periods of time. For
example, allowing ACOs to continue under a one-sided model for up to 6
performance years (as with the program's current design). We believe
that such an approach would, at best, maintain the status quo of the
program, and therefore continue a pattern where ACOs are allowed to
remain under the one-sided model without strong incentives to become
accountable for the cost and quality of care for their assigned
populations.
Finally, we disagree with the commenters' assertions that CMS does
not have authority to discontinue Track 1 and replace it with the BASIC
track, which includes a glide path beginning with a one-sided model
that offers the opportunity to earn shared savings determined under
section 1899(d) of the Act. Section 1899(i)(3) of the Act authorizes
the Secretary to use other payment models rather than the one-sided
model described in section 1899(d) of the Act, as long as the Secretary
determines that the other payment model will improve the quality and
efficiency of items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries
without additional program expenditures. As we described in the August
2018 proposed rule and restate in this final rule, we believe that the
requirements for use of our authority under section 1899(i)(3) are met
with respect to establishing the new BASIC track, as well as the other
policies we proposed and are finalizing that require use of this
authority. In particular, we note that the Regulatory Impact Analysis
in Section V of this final rule includes a description of the
comparison that was conducted between the projected impact of the
payment methodology that incorporates all program elements implemented
using our authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act, versus a
hypothetical baseline payment methodology that excludes the elements
that require section 1899(i)(3) authority. As detailed in that section,
the analysis estimates approximately $4 billion greater average net
program savings under the alternative payment model that includes all
policies that require the authority of section 1899(i)(3) of the Act
than would be expected under the hypothetical baseline in total over
the 2019 to 2028 projection period. The alternative payment model, as
finalized in this rule, is projected to result in greater savings via a
combination of reduced Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures and
reduced net payments to ACOs.
Comment: Some commenters agreed with discontinuing the deferred
renewal option for Track 1 ACOs that is available under the current
regulations. However, most commenters disagreed with CMS' decision to
discontinue the current policy to allow Track 1 ACOs in their first
agreement period to defer renewal for a second agreement period prior
to taking on risk in a two-sided model.
Response: As we previously explained, very few ACOs have elected
the deferred renewal participation option, and we have concluded that
the deferred renewal policy has shown limited success in encouraging
ACOs to advance to performance-based risk. As we explained in the
proposed rule, and reiterated in this section of this final rule, we
continue to believe that the deferred renewal option would be
inconsistent with our proposed redesign of the program that would
transition ACOs from a one-sided model to two-sided models within one
agreement period under the BASIC track's glide path. Further, extending
the length of the agreement period from 3 years to 5 years, as we are
finalizing in this final rule, creates another redundancy with the
deferred renewal option which allows ACOs to defer benchmark rebasing
by 1 year. We are finalizing as proposed our policy to discontinue the
availability of the deferred renewal option for Track 1 ACOs applying
to enter a second agreement period in the Shared Savings Program under
a two-sided model.
Comment: Generally, most commenters favored the proposal to move
from three to five year agreement periods. Most commenters believed
that
[[Page 67839]]
the five year agreement periods would be beneficial due to the amount
of time it takes for ACOs to operationalize changes to support improved
performance in the program. Other commenters stated that the change
would advance greater predictability for providers and health systems
that are making investments and other system changes to support
participation. One commenter noted that a three year agreement period
has been insufficient in terms of enabling participants to implement
reforms to care delivery and workflow. Many other commenters agreed and
believed that the five year agreement periods would help with program
predictability and increase stability. A few commenters stated that
historical benchmarks would become more predictable, since the
benchmark would continue to be based on the expenditures for
beneficiaries who would have been assigned to the ACO in the three most
recent years prior to the start of the ACO's agreement period. Other
commenters believed that the longer agreement periods would provide a
meaningful length of time to measure ACO successes and challenges.
Further, one of the commenters contended that as the Shared Savings
Program matures, it will be important to evaluate and measure ACO
performance and the 5-year agreement period will allow for a more
robust evaluation of financial performance.
However, some commenters disagreed with the change in the length of
the agreement period. Several commenters asserted that the greatest
factor undermining stability within the Shared Savings Program is CMS'
changes to policy repeatedly within and between agreement periods, and
these commenters expressed that moving to a 5-year agreement period
would expose participants to extra potential change within a single
agreement period. One of these commenters stated that this kind of
instability can only be mitigated via shorter agreement periods.
Another commenter stated that it would support the change from three-
to five-years if CMS minimized year-over-year policy changes. One
commenter stated that ACOs who began participating in the Shared
Savings Program in 2012/2013 were either sheltered from consequences or
put at a significant disadvantage. The commenter stated that early
adopters were put at a competitive disadvantage when the regional
benchmarking formulas were introduced for later entrants, and cited the
uncertainty inherent in the potential for future changes in the
regulatory landscape. The commenter further contended that these ACOs
also had the ability to remain under one-sided risk for an extended
period of time, which the commenter believed sheltered these ACOs from
consequences of two-sided risk. The commenter proposed that CMS either
shorten the agreement period or provide for annual updates and
renewals, similar to the Medicare Advantage regulations. Another
commenter stated that, although they accept CMS' decision to extend the
agreement period from three to five years to promote stability, the
commenter was also critical of the fact that CMS regularly changes,
rewrites, or clarifies the Shared Savings Program rules, creating
instability in the program.
Other commenters urged CMS to reconsider the change to a 5-year
agreement period due to their concern that the length of the agreement
period in relation to CMS' proposed risk ratio cap is too long to
properly reflect changes in the attributes of the assigned beneficiary
population. Another commenter was concerned about procuring a repayment
mechanism for the 5-year agreement period plus the additional 24 month
tail period. Specifically, the commenter contended that the extended
duration of the participation agreement might limit the availability of
the surety bond as a repayment mechanism option.
Finally, several commenters recommended that CMS extend the
agreement period to 7 years. Once commenter was concerned that the
proposed rule, with its new and shorter transition to shared losses,
could lead to even greater pressure on providers to respond to the
program's financial incentives to reduce spending on services. The
commenter further contended that these pressures, in turn, may lead to
greater risk that patient access to greater innovations and
technologies will be compromised, especially when these are more
expensive than the standard of care embedded in benchmarks.
Response: We appreciate the general support for moving from three
to five year agreement periods. During previous rulemaking in 2011, we
received a large number of comments surrounding the length of the
agreement period that specifically requested that it be extended to
five years. As part of reevaluating the program requirements, we
believe that it may benefit ACOs to extend the 3-year agreement period
to five years so they will have more predictable benchmarks and
therefore a greater opportunity for return on investment through
achieving shared savings with the longer agreement period. We also
believe that extending the agreement period to five years allows ACOs
to gradually transition to risk and establish an operational structure
to support quality reporting and other Shared Savings Program
requirements, and provides adequate time for data evaluation during the
early part of the agreement period. Further, we recognize that the
longer the agreement period, the greater an ACO's chance to build on
the success or continue the failure of its current agreement. CMS' PY
2016 results show that ACOs produce a higher level of net savings and
more optimal financial performance results the longer they have been in
the Shared Savings Program and with additional participation experience
(83 FR 41917). We also understand commenters' concern that CMS policy
may evolve during the five year agreement period. However, we will
continue to evaluate the effectiveness of Shared Savings Program
policies and make adjustments, as necessary, to further promote
accountability for a patient population, foster the coordination of
Medicare Parts A and B items and services, and encourage high quality
and efficient service delivery.
We reviewed quality and financial results to date in developing
these policy proposals to refine the program. We continue to review ACO
quality and financial results to ensure that the program is providing
as much value as possible, is responsive to stakeholders' feedback, and
is meeting its objectives of improving care coordination for
beneficiaries and lowering growth in Medicare expenditures. We also
make available, to researchers and other external parties, public use
files and research identifiable files with program data, to promote
program transparency and to allow researchers and others to evaluate
and comment on program results.
We appreciate the comments related to the proposed symmetrical 3
percent cap on CMS-HCC risk scores in relation to the proposal for 5-
year agreement periods. In developing our proposed policies, we
considered alternate levels for the cap or allowing full CMS-HCC risk
adjustment with no cap at all. However, we were concerned that a lower
cap would not offer ACOs enough protection against greater health
status changes relative to our current approach. At the same time, we
were concerned that adopting a higher cap, or allowing for full,
uncapped risk adjustment would not provide sufficient protection
against potential coding initiatives. Our choice of 3 percent as the
preferred level for the cap was
[[Page 67840]]
influenced by program experience as described in more detail in section
II.D.2.b of the August 2018 proposed rule.
We appreciate the concerns raised regarding the availability of
repayment mechanism arrangements and, in particular, the availability
of surety bonds. As we explain in section II.A.6 of this final rule,
based on our experience, we believe ACOs will be able to work with
financial institutions to establish the required arrangement to cover
the full 5-year agreement period and tail period plus the 12-month tail
period we are finalizing. However, as described in section II.A.6 of
this final rule, we are also permitting ACOs to satisfy the repayment
mechanism duration requirement by establishing a repayment mechanism
that has a term that covers at least the first two performance years
that an ACO is participating under a two-sided model and provides for
automatic, annual 12 month extensions of the repayment mechanism such
that the repayment mechanism will eventually remain in effect for the
duration of the agreement period plus 12 months following the
conclusion of the agreement period. We believe that these changes will
reduce the burden of establishing a repayment mechanism that satisfies
the duration requirement. We will monitor the use of repayment
mechanisms and may revisit the issue in future rulemaking if we
determine that the ability of an ACO to establish an adequate repayment
mechanism that meets the duration requirement is constrained by the
availability or cost of repayment mechanism options. Furthermore, we
note that nothing in our program rules prohibits an ACO from
establishing multiple repayment mechanisms, as long as the total of the
repayment mechanisms meets the repayment mechanism amount provided by
CMS.
Finally, we appreciate the suggestion for a 7-year agreement period
but due to potential financial and administrative burdens on ACOs,
including procuring a repayment mechanism for a longer period of time,
we are declining to extend the agreement period to that span at this
time.
Comment: One commenter suggested that current ACOs participating in
Track 3 should be provided reward options for undertaking risk such as
the ability to participate in the BASIC track, extension of their
current agreement period, and reduction of the new agreement period to
three years for the first renewal period under the new participation
options for current Track 3 ACOs.
Response: We decline the commenter's suggestions to allow current
Track 3 ACOs the option to choose alternative participation options,
including participation under an initial 3-year agreement period rather
than a 5-year agreement period under the ENHANCED track. As described
elsewhere in this section of this final rule, we are finalizing an
approach to require all ACOs entering agreement periods beginning July
1, 2019 and subsequent years to participate under agreement periods of
at least 5 years. We note that, in the November 2018 final rule, we
finalized a policy which allows all ACOs whose agreement periods expire
on December 31, 2018 to elect a voluntary 6-month extension of their
current agreement period, which includes current Track 3 ACOs with
participation agreements expiring on that date. In addition, we note
that eligible low revenue ACOs that are determined to be experienced
with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives may participate
for an agreement period under Level E of the BASIC track, including
such qualifying ACOs that currently are participating under Track 3. As
described in section II.A.5. of this final rule, low revenue ACOs may
participate in the BASIC track for up to two agreement periods, which
are not required to be sequential. For example, this would allow low
revenue ACOs that transition to the ENHANCED track after a single
agreement period under the BASIC track the opportunity to return to the
BASIC track if the ENHANCED track initially proves to involve too high
a level of performance-based risk.
Comment: One commenter sought clarification as to the interaction
between the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI
Advanced) model and the proposed redesigned Shared Savings Program
participation options. Specifically, the commenter stated that given
its financial and operational investment that they recently made to
participate in the BPCI Advanced model, providers need to understand
explicitly how CMS intends to handle the interaction of the two
programs as the commenter makes its business decision regarding
participation in the Shared Savings Program for the next agreement
period.
Response: Entities may concurrently participate in BPCI Advanced
and the Shared Savings Program. The interactions between the Shared
Savings Program assigned beneficiaries and episodes that are initiated
under the BPCI Advanced model are governed by the model participation
agreement. The current BPCI Advanced participation agreement addresses
financial reconciliation and indicates that clinical episodes may not
be initiated for beneficiaries assigned to a Shared Savings Program ACO
in Track 3, but can be initiated for beneficiaries assigned to a Shared
Savings Program ACO in Track 1, the Track 1+ Model or Track 2. We will
continue to work with our colleagues in the Innovation Center to
address interactions between models and Shared Savings Program ACOs,
including the interaction between BPCI Advanced and the BASIC track and
ENHANCED track, and provide such information in future guidance. We
work to align and create synergies between the Shared Savings Program
and the payment and service delivery models tested by the Innovation
Center. We have policies in place to take into account overlap between
the Shared Savings Program and Innovation Center models, which are
designed to test new payment and service delivery models to reduce
expenditures and preserve or enhance quality of care, whenever
possible. We continue to monitor these policies and make refinements as
we gain experience and lessons learned from these interactions. When
new models are announced, we encourage ACOs and their leaders to engage
in dialogue with the Innovation Center and Shared Savings Program staff
to inform their decision-making regarding the participation options.
Comment: Several commenters suggested CMS consider how to align the
design parameters across Medicare ACO initiatives in redesigning the
Shared Savings Program. One commenter explained that inconsistency
across different Medicare ACO initiatives presents challenges for
organizations that want to progress from one initiative to the next, as
well for organizations that have participants in different Medicare ACO
models at the same time. Another commenter specifically suggested that
CMS continue to identify areas such as with beneficiary attribution and
payment methodologies to create consistency across different Medicare
ACO initiatives and even more broadly across CMS' delivery system
reform portfolio. One commenter specifically suggested that CMS
incorporate several elements of the Next Generation ACO Model into the
Shared Savings Program such as the choice of allowing participation by
TINs or NPIs (as opposed to Shared Savings Program's current
requirement for participation by all NPIs enrolled in an ACO
participant TIN), infrastructure payments, prepayment of shared savings
and primary capitation, which were
[[Page 67841]]
suggestions echoed by other commenters.
Response: We appreciate commenters' support for and interest in
CMS' Medicare ACO initiatives, more generally. We note that the
Innovation Center's time-limited Medicare ACO models, including the
Next Generation ACO Model, are designed to test alternative payment and
service delivery models. Lessons learned from these initiatives may be
used to inform the development of future policies under the Shared
Savings Program, which is a permanent program established under the
authority of section 1899 of the Act. We also believe the alternative
designs of these ACO models provide important pathways for ACOs to
select to participate under a Medicare ACO model that may be more in
line with their organizational preferences and experience with the
accountable care model or the needs of the populations they serve. CMS
provides education and outreach to explain the designs of ACO models,
and requirements for participation in these initiatives, to support
ACOs' compliance with initiative requirements and their success in
achieving the goals of these initiatives. Some changes suggested by
commenters were not contemplated in the August 2018 proposed rule. We
decline to undertake these additional policy modifications at this
time. Specifically, we decline to redefine ACO participants to allow
participation by some but not all NPIs that have reassigned their
billing rights to a TIN, allow for infrastructure payments or
prepayment of shared savings as part of the national program, or to
create a capitated payment model.
Comment: Several commenters encouraged CMS to take steps towards
aligning the Shared Savings Program with Medicare Advantage as part of
the redesign of the Shared Savings Program. One commenter stated that
Medicare Advantage plans are rewarded with higher benchmarks for higher
quality, which puts Shared Savings Program ACOs at a financial
disadvantage. Other commenters suggested that CMS incorporate into the
Shared Savings Program aspects of Medicare Advantage such as
utilization management and more extensive beneficiary incentive
payments (such as under the Innovation Center's Medicare Advantage
Value-Based Insurance Design model). One commenter suggested that
Shared Savings Program ACOs need to be more clearly defined as an
alternative to both traditional FFS Medicare and Medicare Advantage.
Another commenter suggested that there may not be a need for the Shared
Savings Program in light of the availability of Medicare Advantage and
other value-based payment initiatives such as the Innovation Center's
Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) Model.
Response: Elsewhere in this final rule, we discuss commenters'
specific suggestions for bringing greater alignment between the design
of the Shared Savings Program and Medicare Advantage, such as the
modifications to the Shared Savings Program's methodology to annually
risk adjust the historical benchmark (see section II.D of this final
rule). In section II.C.2. of this final rule, we also address
commenters' suggestions that CMS align its proposed beneficiary
incentive program policies with MA.
Although we frequently relied on our experience in other Medicare
programs, including MA, to help develop the original framework for the
Shared Savings Program and will continue to explore opportunities to
align the requirements of the Shared Savings Program and Medicare
Advantage, we believe that the Shared Savings Program offers an
alternative to both volume-based payments under traditional Medicare
FFS and Medicare Advantage. Under the Shared Savings Program, the
providers and suppliers that form an ACO agree to become accountable
for the quality, cost, and overall care of the Medicare FFS
beneficiaries assigned to the ACO. Shared Savings Program ACOs only
share in savings if they meet both the quality performance standards
and generate shareable savings. Medicare FFS beneficiaries assigned to
Shared Savings Program ACOs retain all rights and benefits under
traditional Medicare, including the right to see any physician of their
choosing, and they do not enroll in the Shared Savings Program.
Further, we will continue to offer the Shared Savings Program, as
required by law, and decline the commenters' suggestion that CMS
discontinue the program.
Final Action: We are finalizing our proposed policies to redesign
the program's participation options by discontinuing Track 1, Track 2,
and the deferred renewal option under Sec. Sec. 425.200(b)(3), and
425.200(e). We are also finalizing our policy to offer two tracks that
eligible ACOs would enter into for an agreement period of at least 5
years:
BASIC track, added as a new provision at Sec. 425.605,
which includes an option for eligible ACOs to begin participation
under a one-sided model and incrementally phase-in risk (calculated
based on ACO participant revenue and capped at a percentage of the
ACO's updated benchmark) and potential reward over the course of a
single agreement period, an approach referred to as a glide path (as
described in section II.A.3. of this final rule). We are finalizing
our proposal in Sec. 425.600(a)(4) for eligible ACOs to elect to
operate under the BASIC track.
Under the BASIC track's glide path, the level of risk and
potential reward phases in over the course of the agreement period
in the following order:
++ Level A. The ACO operates under a one-sided model as
described under Sec. 425.605(d)(1)(i).
++ Level B. The ACO operates under a one-sided model as
described under Sec. 425.605(d)(1)(ii).
++ Level C. The ACO operates under a two-sided model as
described under Sec. 425.605(d)(1)(iii).
++ Level D. The ACO operates under a two-sided model as
described under Sec. 425.605(d)(1)(iv).
++ Level E. The ACO operates under a two-sided model as
described under Sec. 425.605(d)(1)(v).
ENHANCED track as currently designed and implemented
under Sec. Sec. 425.600(a)(3), 425.610, based on the program's
existing Track 3.
Additionally, we are finalizing changes to Sec. 425.200 to specify
that ACOs will agree to participate for a period of not less than 5
years for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019 and in subsequent
years. Lastly, we are finalizing revisions to Sec. 425.502(e)(4)(v),
specifying calculation of the quality improvement reward as part of
determining the ACO's quality score, which previously included language
based on 3-year agreements.
3. Creating a BASIC Track With Glide Path to Performance-Based Risk
a. Overview
We proposed that the BASIC track would be available as a
participation option for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019
and in subsequent years. Special considerations and proposals with
respect to the midyear start of the first BASIC track performance year
and the limitation of this first performance year to a 6-month period
are discussed in section II.A.7. of this final rule and, as needed,
throughout this preamble.
In general, we proposed to model the BASIC track on the current
provisions governing Shared Savings Program ACOs under 42 CFR part 425,
including the general eligibility requirements (subpart B), application
procedures (subpart C), program requirements and beneficiary
protections (subpart D), beneficiary assignment methodology (subpart
E), quality performance standards (subpart F), data sharing
opportunities and requirements (subpart H), and benchmarking
methodology (which as discussed in section II.D. of this final rule, we
proposed to specify in a new section of the regulations at
[[Page 67842]]
Sec. 425.601). Further, we proposed that the policies on reopening
determinations of shared savings and shared losses to correct financial
reconciliation calculations (Sec. 425.315), the preclusion of
administrative and judicial review (Sec. 425.800), and the
reconsideration process (subpart I) would apply to ACOs participating
in the BASIC track in the same manner as for all other Shared Savings
Program ACOs. Therefore, we proposed to amend certain existing
regulations to incorporate references to the BASIC track and the
proposed new regulation at Sec. 425.605. This includes amendments to
Sec. Sec. 425.100, 425.315, 425.600, and 425.800. As part of the
revisions to Sec. 425.800, we proposed to clarify that the preclusion
of administrative and judicial review with respect to certain financial
calculations applies only to the extent that a specific calculation is
performed in accordance with section 1899(d) of the Act.
As discussed in section II.A.4.c. of this final rule, we proposed
that ACOs in the BASIC track would have an opportunity to annually
elect their choice of beneficiary assignment methodology. As discussed
in section II.B. of this final rule, we proposed to make the SNF 3-day
rule waiver available to ACOs in the BASIC track under two-sided risk.
If these ACOs select prospective beneficiary assignment, their
physicians and practitioners billing under ACO participant TINs would
also have the opportunity to provide telehealth services under section
1899(l) of the Act, starting in 2020. As described in section II.C. of
this final rule, BASIC track ACOs under two-sided risk (Levels C, D, or
E) would be allowed to apply for and, if approved, establish a CMS-
approved beneficiary incentive program to provide incentive payments to
eligible beneficiaries for qualifying services.
We proposed that, unless otherwise indicated, all current policies
that apply to ACOs under a two-sided model would apply also to ACOs
participating under risk within the BASIC track. This includes the
selection of a Minimum Savings Rate (MSR)/Minimum Loss Rate (MLR)
consistent with the options available under the ENHANCED track, as
specified in Sec. 425.610(b)(1) (with related proposals discussed in
section II.A.6.b. of this final rule), and the requirement to establish
and maintain an adequate repayment mechanism under Sec. 425.204(f)
(with related proposals discussed in section II.A.6.c. of this final
rule). ACOs participating under the one-sided models of the BASIC
track's glide path (Level A and Level B), would be required to select a
MSR/MLR and establish an adequate repayment mechanism prior to their
first performance year in performance-based risk. Additionally, the
same policies regarding notification of savings and losses and the
timing of repayment of any shared losses that apply to ACOs in the
ENHANCED track (see Sec. 425.610(h)) would apply to ACOs in two-sided
risk models under the BASIC track, including the requirement that an
ACO must make payment in full to CMS within 90 days of receipt of
notification of shared losses.
As described in section II.E.4. of the August 2018 proposed rule,
we proposed to extend the policies for addressing the impact of extreme
and uncontrollable circumstances on ACO quality and financial
performance, as established for performance year 2017 to performance
year 2018 and subsequent years. We finalized this proposal in the
November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59968 through 59979) to ensure that
relief is available for ACOs affected by the recent hurricanes in North
Carolina and Florida and other disasters during 2018. In the August
2018 proposed rule, we proposed that these policies would also apply to
BASIC track ACOs. Section 425.502(f) specifies the approach to
calculating an ACO's quality performance score for all affected ACOs.
Further, we proposed that the policies regarding the calculation of
shared losses for ACOs under a two-sided risk model that are affected
by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances (see Sec. 425.610(i))
would also apply to BASIC track ACOs under performance-based risk.
Final Action: There were no comments directed specifically at our
proposal to model the BASIC track on the current provisions governing
Shared Savings Program ACOs under 42 CFR part 425, including the
general eligibility requirements (subpart B), application procedures
(subpart C), program requirements and beneficiary protections (subpart
D), beneficiary assignment methodology (subpart E), quality performance
standards (subpart F), data sharing opportunities and requirements
(subpart H), and benchmarking methodology (subpart G). We are
finalizing our proposals to model the BASIC track on the existing
provisions governing other tracks of the Shared Savings Program.
Elsewhere in this final rule we describe in detail our final policies
for the other proposed revisions to the program's regulations to
establish the BASIC track.
We did not receive any comments specifically addressing our
proposal to extend the policies on extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances to ACOs participating in the BASIC track. We are
finalizing without modification our proposal to specify the policies
regarding extreme and uncontrollable circumstances for the BASIC track
in a new provision at Sec. 425.605(f). We are also finalizing without
modification our proposal to apply Sec. 425.502(f) in calculating the
quality performance score of BASIC track ACOs affected by extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances.
Additionally, we received no comments on our proposal to apply
policies on reopening determinations of shared savings or shared losses
to correct financial reconciliation calculations (Sec. 425.315) to
ACOs in the BASIC track. Further, no comments addressed our proposal to
apply the policies on the preclusion of administrative and judicial
review (Sec. 425.800), and the reconsideration process (subpart I) to
ACOs in the BASIC track. We are finalizing these policies as proposed
and accordingly we are amending Sec. Sec. 425.315, and 425.800 to
incorporate references to the new provision for the BASIC track at
Sec. 425.605. We also received no comments addressing our proposal to
revise Sec. 425.100, which includes a general description of ACOs that
are eligible to receive payments for shared savings or that must share
losses under the program, to incorporate references to the new
provision for the BASIC track at Sec. 425.605, and we are finalizing
the revisions as proposed.
b. Phase-In of Performance-Based Risk in the BASIC Track
(1) Background on Levels of Risk and Reward
To qualify for shared savings, an ACO must have savings equal to or
above its MSR, meet the minimum quality performance standards
established under Sec. 425.502, and otherwise maintain its eligibility
to participate in the Shared Savings Program (Sec. Sec. 425.604(a)(7),
(b) and (c), 425.606(a)(7), (b) and (c), 425.610(a)(7), (b) and (c)).
If an ACO qualifies for savings by meeting or exceeding its MSR, then
the final sharing rate (based on quality performance) is applied to the
ACO's savings on a first dollar basis, to determine the amount of
shared savings up to the performance payment limit (Sec. Sec.
425.604(d) and (e), 425.606(d) and (e), 425.610(d) and (e)).
Under the current program regulations, an ACO that meets all of the
requirements for receiving shared savings under the one-sided model can
qualify to receive a shared savings
[[Page 67843]]
payment of up to 50 percent of all savings under its updated benchmark,
as determined on the basis of its quality performance, not to exceed 10
percent of its updated benchmark. A Track 2 ACO can potentially receive
a shared savings payment of up to 60 percent of all savings under its
updated benchmark, not to exceed 15 percent of its updated benchmark. A
Track 3 ACO can potentially receive a shared savings payment of up to
75 percent of all savings under its updated benchmark, not to exceed 20
percent of its updated benchmark. The higher sharing rates and
performance payment limits under Track 2 and Track 3 were established
as incentives for ACOs to accept greater financial risk for their
assigned beneficiaries in exchange for potentially higher financial
rewards. (See 76 FR 67929 through 67930, 67934 through 67936; 80 FR
32778 through 32779.)
Under the current two-sided models of the Shared Savings Program,
an ACO is responsible for sharing losses with the Medicare program when
the ACO's average per capita Medicare expenditures for the performance
year are above its updated benchmark costs for the year by at least the
MLR established for the ACO (Sec. Sec. 425.606(b)(3), 425.610(b)(3)).
For an ACO that is required to share losses with the Medicare program
for expenditures over its updated benchmark, the shared loss rate (also
referred to as the loss sharing rate) is determined based on the
inverse of its final sharing rate, but may not be less than 40 percent.
The loss sharing rate is applied to an ACO's losses on a first dollar
basis, to determine the amount of shared losses up to the loss
recoupment limit (also referred to as the loss sharing limit)
(Sec. Sec. 425.606(f) and (g), 425.610(f) and (g)).
In earlier rulemaking, we discussed considerations related to
establishing the loss sharing rate and loss sharing limit for Track 2
and Track 3. See 76 FR 67937 (discussing shared loss rate and loss
sharing limit for Track 2) and 80 FR 32778 through 32779 (including
discussion of shared loss rate and loss sharing limit for Track 3).
Under Track 2 and Track 3, the loss sharing rate is determined as 1
minus the ACO's final sharing rate based on quality performance, up to
a maximum of 60 percent or 75 percent, respectively (except that the
loss sharing rate may not be less than 40 percent for Track 3). This
creates symmetry between the sharing rates for savings and losses. The
40 percent floor on the loss sharing rate under both Track 2 and Track
3 ensures comparability in the minimum level of performance-based risk
that ACOs accept under these tracks. The higher ceiling on the loss
sharing rate under Track 3 reflects the greater risk Track 3 ACOs
accept in exchange for the possibility of greater reward compared to
Track 2.
Under Track 2, the limit on the amount of shared losses phases in
over 3 years starting at 5 percent of the ACO's updated historical
benchmark in the first performance year of participation in Track 2,
7.5 percent in year 2, and 10 percent in year 3 and any subsequent
year. Under Track 3, the loss sharing limit is 15 percent of the ACO's
updated historical benchmark, with no phase-in. Losses in excess of the
annual limit would not be shared.
The level of risk under both Track 2 and Track 3 exceeds the
Advanced APM generally applicable nominal amount standard under Sec.
414.1415(c)(3)(i)(B) (set at 3 percent of the expected expenditures for
which an APM Entity is responsible under the APM). CMS has determined
that Track 2 and Track 3 meet the Advanced APM criteria under the
Quality Payment Program, and are therefore Advanced APMs. Eligible
clinicians that sufficiently participate in Advanced APMs such that
they are QPs for a performance year receive APM Incentive Payments in
the corresponding payment year between 2019 through 2024, and then
higher fee schedule updates starting in 2026.
The Track 1+ Model is testing whether combining the upside sharing
parameters of the popular Track 1 with limited downside risk sufficient
for the model to qualify as an Advanced APM will encourage more ACOs to
advance to performance-based risk. The Track 1+ Model has reduced risk
in two main ways relative to Track 2 and Track 3. First, losses under
the Track 1+ Model are shared at a flat 30 percent loss sharing rate,
which is 10 percentage points lower than the minimum quality-adjusted
loss sharing rate used in both Track 2 and Track 3. Second, a
bifurcated approach is used to set the loss sharing limit for a Track
1+ Model ACO, depending on the ownership and operational interests of
its ACO participants, as identified by TINs and CMS Certification
Numbers (CCNs).
The applicable loss sharing limit under the Track 1+ Model is
determined based on whether the ACO includes an ACO participant (TIN/
CCN) that is an IPPS hospital, cancer center or a rural hospital with
more than 100 beds, or that is owned or operated, in whole or in part,
by such a hospital or by an organization that owns or operates such a
hospital. If at least one of these criteria is met, then a potentially
higher level of performance-based risk applies, and the loss sharing
limit is set at 4 percent of the ACO's updated historical benchmark
(described herein as the benchmark-based loss sharing limit). For the
Track 1+ Model, this is a lower level of risk than is required under
either Track 2 or Track 3, and greater than the Advanced APM generally
applicable nominal amount standard under Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i)(B) for
2018, 2019 and 2020. If none of these criteria is met, as may be the
case with some ACOs composed of independent physician practices and/or
ACOs that include small rural hospitals, then a potentially lower level
of performance-based risk applies, and the loss sharing limit is
determined as a percentage of the total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue of the ACO participants (described herein as the revenue-based
loss sharing limit). For Track 1+ Model ACOs under a revenue-based loss
sharing limit, in performance years 2018, 2019 and 2020, total
liability for shared losses is limited to 8 percent of total Medicare
Parts A and B FFS revenue of the ACO participants. If the loss sharing
limit, as a percentage of the ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A
and B FFS revenue, exceeds the amount that is 4 percent of the ACO's
updated historical benchmark, then the loss sharing limit is capped and
set at 4 percent of the updated historical benchmark. For performance
years 2018 through 2020, this level of performance-based risk qualifies
the Track 1+ Model as an Advanced APM under Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i)(A).
In subsequent years of the Track 1+ Model, if the relevant percentage
specified in the Quality Payment Program regulations changes, the Track
1+ Model ACO would be required to take on a level of risk consistent
with the percentage required in Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i)(A) for an APM
to qualify as an Advanced APM.
The loss sharing limit under this bifurcated structure is
determined by CMS near the start of an ACO's agreement period under the
Track 1+ Model (based on the ACO's application to the Track 1+ Model),
and re-determined annually based on an annual certification process
prior to the start of each performance year under the Track 1+ Model.
The Track 1+ Model ACO's loss sharing limit could be adjusted up or
down on this basis. See Track 1+ Model Fact Sheet at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/New-Accountable-Care-Organization-Model-Opportunity-Fact-Sheet.pdf for more detail.
Since the start of the Shared Savings Program, we have heard a
variety of concerns and suggestions from ACOs
[[Page 67844]]
and other program stakeholders about the transition from a one-sided
model to performance-based risk (see discussion in section II.A.1. of
this final rule). Through rulemaking, we developed a one-sided shared
savings only model and extended the allowable time in this track to
support ACOs' readiness to take on performance-based risk. As a result,
the vast majority of Shared Savings Program ACOs have chosen to enter
and remain in the one-sided model. Our early experience with the design
of the Track 1+ Model demonstrates that the availability of a lower-
risk, two-sided model is effective to encourage a large cohort of ACOs
to rapidly progress to performance-based risk.
(2) Levels of Risk and Reward in the BASIC Track's Glide Path
In general, we proposed the following participation options within
the BASIC track.
First, we proposed the BASIC track's glide path as an incremental
approach to higher levels of risk and potential reward. The glide path
includes 5 levels: A one-sided model available only for the first 2
consecutive performance years of a 5-year agreement period (Level A and
B), each year of which is identified as a separate level; and three
levels of progressively higher risk and potential reward in performance
years 3 through 5 of the agreement period (Level C, D, and E). ACOs
would be automatically advanced at the start of each participation year
along the progression of risk/reward levels, over the course of a 5-
year agreement period, until they reach the track's maximum level of
risk/reward (designed to be the same as the level of risk and potential
reward as under the Track 1+ Model). The automatic advancement policy
would not apply to the second performance year for an ACO entering the
BASIC track's glide path for an agreement period beginning July 1,
2019. Such an ACO would enter the BASIC track for its first performance
year of July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, at its chosen level of
the glide path. For performance year 2020, the ACO may remain in the
same level of the BASIC track's glide path that it entered for the
performance year (or 6-month performance period) beginning July 1,
2019. The ACO would be automatically advanced to the next level of the
BASIC track's glide path at the start of performance year 2021 and all
subsequent performance years of the agreement period (see section
II.A.7. of this final rule).
We proposed that the participation options in the BASIC track's
glide path would depend on an ACO's experience with the Shared Savings
Program, as described in section II.A.5.c. of this final rule. ACOs
eligible for the BASIC track's glide path that are new to the program
would have the flexibility to enter the glide path at any one of the
five levels. However, ACOs that previously participated in Track 1, or
a new ACO identified as a re-entering ACO because more than 50 percent
of its ACO participants have recent prior experience in a Track 1 ACO,
would be ineligible to enter the glide path at Level A, thereby
limiting their opportunity to participate in a one-sided model of the
glide path. We also proposed ACOs would be automatically transitioned
to progressively higher levels of risk and potential reward (if higher
levels are available) within the remaining years of the agreement
period. We proposed to allow ACOs in the BASIC track's glide path to
more rapidly transition to higher levels of risk and potential reward
within the glide path during the agreement period. As described in
section II.A.4.b. of this final rule, ACOs in the BASIC track may
annually elect to take on higher risk and potential reward within their
current agreement period, to more rapidly progress along the glide
path.
Second, we proposed the BASIC track's highest level of risk and
potential reward (Level E) may be elected for any performance year by
ACOs that enter the BASIC track's glide path, but it will be required
no later than the ACO's fifth performance year of the glide path (sixth
performance year for eligible ACOs starting participation in Level A of
the BASIC track on July 1, 2019). ACOs in the BASIC track's glide path
that previously participated in Track 1, or new ACOs identified as re-
entering ACOs because more than 50 percent of their ACO participants
have recent prior experience in a Track 1 ACO, would be eligible to
begin in Level B, and therefore would be required to participate in
Level E no later than the ACO's fourth performance year of the glide
path (fifth performance year for ACOs starting participation in the
BASIC track on July 1, 2019). The level of risk/reward under Level E of
the BASIC track is also required for low revenue ACOs eligible to enter
an agreement period under the BASIC track that are determined to be
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives
(discussed in section II.A.5. of this final rule).
We explained that designing a glide path to performance-based risk
that concludes with the level of risk and potential reward offered
under the Track 1+ Model balances ACOs' interest in remaining under
lower-risk options with our goal of more rapidly transitioning ACOs to
performance-based risk. The BASIC track's glide path offers a pathway
through which ACOs inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare
ACO initiatives can participate under a one-sided model before entering
relatively low levels of risk and asymmetrical potential reward for
several years, concluding with the lowest level of risk and potential
reward available under a current Medicare ACO initiative. As we stated
in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41804), we believe the
opportunity for eligible ACOs to participate in a one-sided model for
up to 2 years (3 performance years, in the case of an ACO entering at
Level A of the BASIC track's glide path on July 1, 2019) could offer
new ACOs a chance to become experienced with the accountable care model
and program requirements before taking on risk. The proposed approach
also recognizes that ACOs that gained experience with the program's
requirements during prior participation under Track 1, would need less
additional time under a one-sided model before making the transition to
performance-based risk. However, we also stated that the glide path
should provide strong incentives for ACOs to quickly move along the
progression towards higher performance-based risk, and therefore
preferred an approach that significantly limits the amount of potential
shared savings in the one-sided model years of the BASIC track's glide
path, while offering incrementally higher potential reward in relation
to each level of higher risk. Under this approach ACOs would have
reduced incentive to enter or remain in the one-sided model of the
BASIC track's glide path if they are prepared to take on risk, and we
would anticipate that these ACOs would seek to accept greater
performance-based risk in exchange for the chance to earn greater
reward.
As described in detail in this section, we proposed a similar
asymmetrical two-sided risk design for the BASIC track as is available
under the Track 1+ Model, with key distinguishing features based on
early lessons learned from the Track 1+ Model. Unless indicated
otherwise, we proposed that savings would be calculated based on the
same methodology used to determine shared savings under the program's
existing tracks (see Sec. 425.604). The maximum amount of potential
reward under the BASIC track would be the same as the upside of Track 1
and the Track 1+ Model. The methodology for determining shared losses
would be a bifurcated approach similar to the approach used under the
Track 1+
[[Page 67845]]
Model, as discussed in more detail elsewhere in this section. In all
years under performance-based risk, we proposed to apply asymmetrical
levels of risk and reward, where the maximum potential reward would be
greater than the maximum level of performance-based risk.
For the BASIC track's glide path, we proposed the phase-in schedule
of levels of risk/reward by year would be as follows. This progression
assumes an ACO enters the BASIC track's glide path under a one-sided
model for 2 years and follows the automatic progression of the glide
path through each of the 5 years of its agreement period.
Level A and Level B: Eligible ACOs entering the BASIC
track would have the option of being under a one-sided model for up to
2 consecutive performance years (3 consecutive performance years for
ACOs that enter the BASIC track's glide path on July 1, 2019). As
described elsewhere in this final rule, ACOs that previously
participated in Track 1, or new ACOs identified as re-entering ACOs
because more than 50 percent of their ACO participants have recent
prior experience in a Track 1 ACO, would be ineligible to enter the
glide path under Level A, although they could enter under Level B.
Under this proposed one-sided model, a final sharing rate not to exceed
25 percent based on quality performance would apply to first dollar
shared savings for ACOs that meet or exceed their MSR. This sharing
rate is one-half of the maximum sharing rate of 50 percent currently
available under Track 1. Savings would be shared at this rate not to
exceed 10 percent of the ACO's updated benchmark, consistent with the
current policy for Track 1. For subsequent years, ACOs that wished to
continue participating in the Shared Savings Program would be required
to participate under performance-based risk.
Level C risk/reward:
++ Shared Savings: A final sharing rate not to exceed 30 percent
based on quality performance would apply to first dollar shared savings
for ACOs that meet or exceed their MSR, not to exceed 10 percent of the
ACO's updated historical benchmark.
++ Shared Losses: A loss sharing rate of 30 percent regardless of
the quality performance of the ACO would apply to first dollar shared
losses for ACOs with losses meeting or exceeding their MLR, not to
exceed 2 percent of total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for ACO
participants. If the loss sharing limit as a percentage of total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for ACO participants exceeds the
amount that is 1 percent of the ACO's updated historical benchmark,
then the loss sharing limit would be capped and set at 1 percent of the
ACO's updated historical benchmark for the applicable performance year.
This level of risk is not sufficient to meet the generally applicable
nominal amount standard for Advanced APMs under the Quality Payment
Program specified in Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i).
Level D risk/reward:
++ Shared Savings: A final sharing rate not to exceed 40 percent
based on quality performance would apply to first dollar shared savings
for ACOs that meet or exceed their MSR, not to exceed 10 percent of the
ACO's updated historical benchmark.
++ Shared Losses: A loss sharing rate of 30 percent regardless of
the quality performance of the ACO would apply to first dollar shared
losses for ACOs with losses meeting or exceeding their MLR, not to
exceed 4 percent of total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for ACO
participants. If the loss sharing limit as a percentage of total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for ACO participants exceeds the
amount that is 2 percent of the ACO's updated historical benchmark,
then the loss sharing limit would be capped and set at 2 percent of the
ACO's updated historical benchmark for the applicable performance year.
This level of risk is not sufficient to meet the generally applicable
nominal amount standard for Advanced APMs under the Quality Payment
Program specified in Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i).
Level E risk/reward: The ACO would be under the highest
level of risk and potential reward for this track, which is the same
level of risk and potential reward being tested in the Track 1+ Model.
Further, ACOs that are eligible to enter the BASIC track, but that are
ineligible to enter the glide path (as discussed in section II.A.5. of
this final rule) would enter and remain under Level E risk/reward for
the duration of their BASIC track agreement period.
++ Shared Savings: A final sharing rate not to exceed 50 percent
based on quality performance would apply to first dollar shared savings
for ACOs that meet or exceed their MSR, not to exceed 10 percent of the
ACO's updated historical benchmark. This is the same level of potential
reward currently available under Track 1 and the Track 1+ Model.
++ Shared Losses: A loss sharing rate of 30 percent regardless of
the quality performance of the ACO would apply to first dollar shared
losses for ACOs with losses meeting or exceeding their MLR. The
percentage of ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue used to determine the revenue-based loss sharing limit would be
set for each performance year consistent with the generally applicable
nominal amount standard for an Advanced APM under Sec.
414.1415(c)(3)(i)(A) to allow eligible clinicians participating in a
BASIC track ACO subject to this level of risk the opportunity to earn
the APM incentive payment and ultimately higher fee schedule updates
starting in 2026, in the payment year corresponding to each performance
year in which they attain QP status. For example, for performance years
2019 and 2020, this would be 8 percent. However, if the loss sharing
limit, as a percentage of the ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A
and B FFS revenue exceeds the expenditure-based nominal amount
standard, as a percentage of the ACO's updated historical benchmark,
then the loss sharing limit would be capped at 1 percentage point
higher than the expenditure-based nominal amount standard specified
under Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i)(B), which is calculated as a percentage
of the ACO's updated historical benchmark. For example, for performance
years 2019 and 2020, the expenditure-based nominal amount standard is 3
percent; therefore, the loss sharing limit for Level E of the BASIC
track in these same years would be 4 percent of the ACO's updated
historical benchmark. The proposed BASIC track at Level E risk/reward
would meet all of the Advanced APM criteria and would be an Advanced
APM. (See Table 3 and related notes for additional information and an
overview of the Advanced APM criteria.)
This approach initially maintains consistency between the level of
risk and potential reward offered under Level E of the BASIC track and
the popular Track 1+ Model. This proposed approach to determining the
maximum amount of shared losses under Level E of the BASIC track
strikes a balance between (1) placing ACOs under a higher level of risk
to recognize the greater potential reward under this financial model
and the additional tools and flexibilities available to BASIC track
ACOs under performance-based risk and (2) establishing an approach to
help ensure the maximum level of risk under the BASIC track remains
moderate. Specifically, this proposed approach differentiates the level
of risk and potential reward under Level E compared to Levels C and D
of the BASIC track, by requiring greater risk in
[[Page 67846]]
exchange for the greatest potential reward under the BASIC track, while
still offering more manageable levels of benchmark-based risk than
currently offered under Track 2 (in which the loss sharing limit phase-
in begins at 5 percent of the ACO's updated benchmark) and Track 3 (15
percent of the ACO's updated benchmark). Further, this approach
recognizes that eligible ACOs in Level E have the opportunity to earn
the greatest share of savings under the BASIC track, and should
therefore be accountable for a higher level of losses, particularly in
light of their access to tools for care coordination and beneficiary
engagement, including the ability of participating physicians and
practitioners to furnish telehealth services in accordance with 1899(l)
of the Act, the SNF 3-day rule waiver (as discussed in section II.B. of
this final rule), and the opportunity to implement a CMS-approved
beneficiary incentive program (as discussed in section II.C. of this
final rule).
We proposed that ACOs entering the BASIC track's glide path would
be automatically advanced along the progression of risk/reward levels,
at the start of each performance year over the course of the agreement
period (except at the start of performance year 2020 for ACOs that
start in the BASIC track on July 1, 2019), until they reach the track's
maximum level of risk and potential reward. As discussed in section
II.A.4.b. of this final rule, BASIC track ACOs in the glide path would
also be permitted to elect to advance more quickly to higher levels of
risk and potential reward within their agreement period. The longest
possible glide path would be 5 performance years for eligible new ACOs
entering the BASIC track (6 performance years for ACOs beginning their
participation in the BASIC track on July 1, 2019). The maximum allowed
time in Levels A, B, C and D of the glide path would be one performance
year (with the exception that ACOs beginning their participation in the
BASIC track on July 1, 2019, would have the option to remain at their
chosen level of risk and potential reward for their first 2 performance
years in the BASIC track). Once the highest level of risk and potential
reward is reached on the glide path (Level E), ACOs would be required
to remain under the maximum level of risk/reward for all subsequent
years of participation in the BASIC track, which includes all years of
a subsequent agreement period under the BASIC track for eligible ACOs.
Further, an ACO within the BASIC track's glide path could not elect to
return to lower levels of risk and potential reward, or to the one-
sided model, within an agreement period under the glide path.
To participate under performance-based risk in the BASIC track, an
ACO would be required to establish a repayment mechanism and select a
MSR/MLR to be applicable for the years of the agreement period under a
two-sided model (as discussed in section II.A.6. of this final rule).
We proposed that an ACO that is unable to meet the program requirements
for accepting performance-based risk would not be eligible to enter
into a two-sided model under the BASIC track. If an ACO enters the
BASIC track's glide path in a one-sided model and is unable to meet the
requirements to participate under performance-based risk prior to being
automatically transitioned to a performance year under risk, CMS would
terminate the ACO's agreement under Sec. 425.218. For example, if an
ACO is participating in the glide path in Level B and is unable to
establish an adequate repayment mechanism before the start of its
performance year under Level C, the ACO would not be permitted to
continue its participation in the program.
In section II.A.5.c. of this final rule, we describe our proposed
requirements for determining an ACO's eligibility for participation
options in the BASIC track and ENHANCED track based on a combination of
factors: ACO participants' Medicare FFS revenue (low revenue ACOs
versus high revenue ACOs) and the experience of the ACO legal entity
and its ACO participants with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives. Tables 7 and 8 summarize the participation options
available to ACOs under the BASIC track and ENHANCED track. As with
current program policy, an ACO would apply to enter an agreement period
under a specific track. If the ACO's application is accepted, the ACO
would remain under that track for the duration of its agreement period.
We proposed to codify these policies in a new section of the Shared
Savings Program regulations governing the BASIC track, at Sec.
425.605. We sought comment on these proposals.
Further, in section II.A.5.b.(3) of the August 2018 proposed rule
(83 FR 41819 through 41820), we described and sought comment on several
approaches to allowing for potentially greater access to shared savings
for low revenue ACOs compared to high revenue ACOs. We explained that
low revenue ACOs (identified as proposed using a threshold of 25
percent of Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for assigned
beneficiaries), which may tend to be small, physician-only and rural
ACOs, are likely less capitalized organizations and may be relatively
risk-averse. These ACOs may be encouraged to participate and remain in
the program under performance-based risk based on the availability of
additional incentives, such as the opportunity to earn a greater share
of savings. Therefore, we considered allowing for a relatively higher
final sharing rate under the first four levels of the BASIC track's
glide path for low revenue ACOs. For example, rather than the proposed
approach under which the final sharing rate would phase in from a
maximum of 25 percent in Level A to a maximum of 50 percent in Level E,
we could allow a maximum 50 percent sharing rate based on quality
performance to be available at all levels within the BASIC track's
glide path for low revenue ACOs.
Comment: Generally, many commenters understood and agreed with the
need to introduce the BASIC track's five level glide path (with the two
year limit in a one-sided model and automatic advancement to
incremental risk each of the remaining 3 years) as an incremental
approach to higher levels of risk and reward. A few commenters
appreciated CMS' effort to simplify the participation options and
establish a clear streamlined glide path to risk-bearing models. They
agreed that 2017 Shared Savings Program results confirm that ACO
performance improves with longer participation in the program, and
encouraged CMS to provide accurate and timely reporting and carefully
monitor these efforts to support their continued growth and
improvement. Another noted that the proposed approach provided a clear
and consistent pathway for participants and prospective enrollees to
understand their journey to risk. One commenter noted that CMS'
redesign of the program and addition of the new BASIC track is an
approach that factors in ACOs' revenue and experience and will provide
greater stability and predictability and help more health care
providers benefit from qualifying as participating in Advanced APMs
under the Quality Payment Program. One commenter was encouraged to see
that through this rule, CMS is advancing opportunities in two-sided
risk ACOs because it has seen firsthand the type of care transformation
that is possible when organizations participate in performance-based
risk to improve population health. The commenter was also pleased with
CMS' commitment to waiving and modifying certain burdensome program
rules for
[[Page 67847]]
organizations that are engaged in increasing levels of financial risk.
Another commenter generally agreed with CMS' redesign proposal, noting
that, although it may reduce the number of ACOs in the program, those
that remain would be more likely to control expenditures for the
Medicare program and make real efforts to improve care. The commenter
added that the goal of the Shared Savings Program should be to create
the conditions that will reward efficient ACOs that can create real
value for the Medicare program, its beneficiaries, and the taxpayers,
not to maximize the number of ACOs. Another commenter noted CMS likely
moderated any concerns of ACOs leaving the program by incorporating
other policy changes and flexibilities in the proposed rule, such as
refining the benchmarking methodology, allowing for risk adjustment
each performance year, adjusting patient attribution methodology, and
establishing flexibility for low revenue ACOs.
However, a majority of commenters were opposed to limiting the
amount of time an ACO can participate under a one-sided model from six
to two years (because, for example, it dramatically decreases the time
in which an ACO can build capital reserves for a repayment mechanism)
and provided suggestions for CMS to adopt a more gradual approach to
risk. Many commenters did not want us to discontinue Track 1 (as
detailed in section II.A.2 of this final rule) and would prefer that we
provide for an upside-only track. Some commenters expressed that it
makes sense to push hospital-led ACOs into risk, but stated that there
is no compelling case that risk is necessary for physician-led ACOs.
One commenter, a physician-led ACO, added that requiring it to
automatically advance to performance-based risk would cause it to face
the prospect of bankrupting its organization. We received numerous
comments from rural ACOs to extend the allotted time period in which a
rural ACO can participate in an upside-only arrangement in the BASIC
track. Some of those commenters noted that certain ACO participants,
such as FQHCs, RHCs, and CAHs, provide care to some of the most
underserved communities and require additional time and investments to
prepare for two-sided risk arrangements.
Most commenters provided recommendations for CMS to extend the time
any ACO can participate in a one-sided model to three years, as opposed
to two, stating that it takes longer than two participation years to
implement meaningful changes in a healthcare delivery model and among
healthcare provider and patient populations. Other commenters believe
that the progression to two-sided risk is far too aggressive and will
deter participation. These commenters usually suggested allowing for 4
or 5 performance years (or a full agreement period) under a one-sided
model. Some commenters suggested that rural ACOs should be allowed at
least two, 5-year agreement periods under a one-sided model.
Response: We appreciate the comments, but we continue to believe
that the proposed transition to two-sided risk under the design of the
BASIC track's glide path will promote a competitive and accountable
marketplace, while improving the quality of care for Medicare
beneficiaries.
We disagree with commenters' suggestions to allow all ACOs or
select ACOs (for example, based on their geographic location,
historical cost or provider composition) to remain under the one-sided
model for an extended time or even indefinitely. We believe such a
policy design would, at best, maintain the status quo of the program,
and therefore continue a pattern where ACOs are allowed to remain under
the one-sided model for a significant number of years without strong
incentives to become accountable for the cost and quality of care for
their assigned populations. As described in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (see section V of this final rule), our results have shown
that ACOs in two-sided models perform better over time than one-sided
model ACOs. At the same time, while some ACOs have taken on significant
downside risk and shown significant savings to the Medicare program
while advancing quality, a majority of ACOs--while having the ability
to benefit from waivers of certain federal rules and requirements--have
yet to move to any downside risk. Generally, these ACOs are increasing
Medicare spending compared to their benchmarks, and the presence of an
``upside-only'' track may be encouraging consolidation in the
marketplace, reducing competition and beneficiary choice. The
combination of six years of upside-only risk and the ability to benefit
from significant waivers available in the program may also be leading
to the formation of one-sided ACOs that are not making serious efforts
to improve quality and reduce spending, potentially crowding out
formation of more effective ACOs. Thus, we continue to believe that
Medicare FFS beneficiaries and the Trust Funds would be better
protected by the progression of eligible ACOs from a one-sided model to
two-sided models within the span of a five-year agreement period under
the BASIC track's glide path.
However, we understand that this requirement may pose an additional
financial burden, particularly for rural or physician-led ACOs, many of
which would be considered low revenue ACOs under the proposed rule. We
also continue to believe that the move to two-sided risk will encourage
low revenue ACOs, typically small, rural and physician-only ACOs, to
more aggressively pursue the program's goals of improving quality of
care, and lowering growth in expenditures, for Medicare FFS
beneficiaries. Therefore, as discussed in greater detail in section
II.A.5.c of this final rule, we are finalizing an approach that will
permit ACO legal entities without prior experience in the Shared
Savings Program that are identified as low revenue ACOs and
inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives to
stay in a one-sided model of the BASIC track's glide path for an
additional performance year. Under this approach eligible ACOs will
have the opportunity to participate for up to 3 performance years (or 4
performance years in the case of ACOs entering an agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019) under a one-sided model of the BASIC track's
glide path before automatically advancing to Level E of the BASIC track
for the remaining performance years of their agreement period. We
believe that this option, in part, addresses commenters' concerns and
suggestions for a relatively gentler glide path to two-sided risk for
small, rural and physician-only ACOs that are likely to qualify as low
revenue ACOs, and supports continued participation of these ACOs in the
Shared Savings Program. For instance, we believe that this option
provides an opportunity for new, low revenue ACOs to become more
experienced with the Shared Savings Program's requirements and the
accountable care model, and to potentially realize savings, to support
their participation in performance-based risk. In light of this
additional flexibility that we are making available for new legal
entities that qualify as low revenue ACOs inexperienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, we decline to adopt
any other alternatives suggested by commenters that would allow for
lower risk participation options for rural or physician-led ACOs.
Comment: We received numerous comments concerning our proposal to
set the final sharing rate for the one-sided model not to exceed 25
percent based on quality performance that applies to first dollar
shared savings for
[[Page 67848]]
ACOs that meet or exceed their MSR. One commenter stated that although
a 25 percent sharing rate under Levels A and B of the BASIC track is
not worth the ACO's continued participation in the program, the
commenter contended that it is the right thing to do in order to
continue to innovate primary care in the medical community.
Most commenters had concerns about reducing the shared savings rate
from 50 percent (as currently available under Track 1) to 25 percent
for ACOs in Levels A and B of the BASIC track, asserting that doing so
would deter new entrants from applying to the Shared Savings Program
and undermine the business case to join the Shared Savings Program.
Some contended that, due to the sizeable investment that ACOs make (for
example, one ACO reportedly spent almost $2 million a year, on average,
including investments made in health information technology, population
health management and ACO administration), it is imperative that the
opportunity for return on investment is realistic enough for the
business model to be attractive, retain current ACO participants, and
bring in new ACOs. One commenter stated that the reduction in sharing
rates would result in challenges with provider/supplier buy-in, which
has been crucial to the success of the commenter's ACOs. The commenter
further contended that many physicians value the Shared Savings
Program's emphasis on quality of care as a result of collaborative
efforts across practices. Another commenter stated that the impact of
increased financial pressure will cause ACOs to inappropriately focus
on reducing costs over achieving high-quality outcomes, and
consequently put beneficiaries' access to medical care at risk. One
commenter contended there is a low likelihood that a newly formed ACO
will achieve shared savings in the early years of its operations.
Some commenters noted that clinicians and physician-led practices
seeking to start or join an ACO must make significant practice changes
and investments to position themselves for success in the program. One
commenter noted that for independent physicians, the potential reward
for making these changes must be high enough to justify initial
infrastructure costs, as well as ongoing investments in staff and other
resources needed for population health management and that the proposed
25 percent savings rate would deter these participants and ACOs from
joining the Shared Savings Program. Some commenters explained a
reduction in potential savings will greatly impact low revenue,
physician-led ACOs, and could end up forcing these ACOs from the
program.
Most commenters proposed an increased maximum shared savings rate
under Levels A and B of the BASIC track ranging from 40 to 80 percent,
with a majority requesting a 50 percent shared savings rate. One of
these commenters also suggested an incremental upwards adjustment of
the shared savings rate up to 10 percentage points (from 50 percent)
based on quality to emphasize and reward above average quality
performance or improvement. Some commenters recommended that CMS offer
a higher sharing rate to support ACOs, especially physician-led and low
revenue ACOs with more limited capital reserves. Some commenters
suggested that CMS provide higher sharing rates for all levels of the
BASIC track's glide path, for instance beginning at 50 percent (Level A
and B), progressing to 55 percent for Levels C and D, and reaching 60
percent in Level E.
We also received numerous comments from rural ACOs stating that
rural ACOs lack the resources to take on risk (including capital
reserves necessary for required repayment mechanisms) and that the
proposed 25 percent final sharing rate under Levels A and B of the
BASIC track is not worth the risk of joining the program and will drive
most of these ACOs from the program. Many noted that they operate on
tight budgets and with limited human and capital resources while
providing care for a sicker and older Medicare population than urban
providers. Thus, they assert that CMS should create a glide path
specifically for rural ACOs. One commenter noted that rural ACOs
predominantly made up of Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) are not in a
position to take on downside risk given the inherent volatility in
cost-based reimbursement, and the proposal would force these rural ACOs
to exit the Shared Savings Program, resulting in these ACOs no longer
having access to useful information such as beneficiary-level claims
data and reducing the value of significant investments these ACOs have
made (to date) to redesign rural healthcare delivery. Thus, the
commenter asserted that CMS' proposal failed to provide a viable
alternative for APM participation for rural ACOs.
Instead, these commenters proposed several alternatives for CMS to
provide an exception specifically for rural ACOs to receive an
increased final sharing rate under the BASIC track. One commenter was
generally supportive of the proposed BASIC track, but proposed that CMS
provide a no-downside risk option for rural providers due to their cost
of operations. Additionally, many commenters requested that CMS develop
a third Track for rural ACOs. Similarly, another commenter believed
that CMS should develop a more gradual pathway to increased levels of
financial risk for low revenue ACOs, specifically those composed of
FQHCs. Several commenters suggested that CMS should consider all rural
ACOs to be low revenue ACOs and maintain the 50 percent shared savings
rate for them each year under the BASIC track. Another commenter
proposed that ACOs comprised solely of safety net providers should be
allowed to participate in Level A of the BASIC track with 50 percent
shared savings indefinitely as long as they improve quality and do not
increase costs.
One commenter, representing the perspective of a hospital-based
ACO, explained it had grave concerns about allowing higher shared
savings rates (such as 50 percent) for only low revenue ACOs for all
years in the BASIC track (an approach we sought comment on in the
August 2018 proposed rule), viewing this approach as giving low revenue
ACOs a competitive advantage over high revenue ACOs. This commenter
indicated that this approach would discourage high revenue ACOs, which
the commenter argued are best situated to achieve savings for Medicare.
Response: We appreciate the wide range of comments requesting or
suggesting adjustments to specific policies so that an ACO could share
in a higher level of savings than what was proposed for the BASIC
track's glide path: 25 percent sharing rate for Levels A and B, 30
percent sharing rate for Level C, 40 percent sharing rate for Level D,
and 50 percent sharing rate for Level E. Initially, we decided to
propose a 25 percent sharing rate under Levels A and B of the BASIC
track because the 25 percent sharing rate is one-half of the maximum
sharing rate of 50 percent currently available under Track 1. As an ACO
transitioned to performance-based risk, and then continued to undertake
greater risk by advancing through the glide path, the sharing rate
would incrementally increase to 50 percent under Level E. However,
generally, we are persuaded by the expressed views that the reward-to-
risk ratio for participating in the program as proposed is generally
unattractive to ACOs, and agree with commenters that an alternative
policy featuring more generous sharing rates would attract and sustain
broader participation in the Shared Savings Program. We believe that
increasing the maximum sharing rates will strike a better balance
between robust participation and incentivizing
[[Page 67849]]
the move to two-sided risk. We decided to increase the maximum sharing
rate to 50 percent for Levels C through E of the BASIC track to
correspond with the gradual increase in risk as the ACO advances on the
glide path. We understand the commenters' concerns that the reduction
in the maximum sharing rate could pose a financial hardship for ACOs by
reducing shared savings payments that could support operational costs,
and thus, the policy could be a potential barrier to the formation of
and continued success of ACOs. We agree that financial rewards must be
sufficient to offset provider risks and startup-costs, particularly for
low revenue ACOs (which tend to be small, rural and physician-only
ACOs). We also agree with commenters that the same shared savings rates
should apply consistently across ACOs participating in a particular
level of the BASIC track's glide path, rather than differentiating the
shared savings rates based on the distinction between low revenue ACOs
and high revenue ACOs. Therefore, we also decline to apply different
shared savings rates to ACOs within the same Level of the BASIC track's
glide path, based on other factors, such as composition, as suggested
by some commenters.
Thus, we are modifying our proposal and finalizing higher maximum
sharing rates for ACOs participating in the BASIC track as a means of
encouraging participation in the program and potentially providing
greater resources to ACOs to support their transition to performance-
based risk. We are finalizing an approach to allow for a maximum shared
savings rate of 40 percent for Levels A and B and 50 percent for Levels
C, D, and E.
Comment: We received a few comments opposing our proposal to
automatically transition ACOs to progressively higher levels of risk
and potential reward (if higher levels are available) within the
remaining years of the agreement period under the BASIC track's glide
path. One commenter urged CMS to consider allowing high performing ACOs
more than a year in limited risk tracks, such as Levels C and D of the
BASIC track, and that CMS could outline parameters for successful ACOs
to continue in a particular level prior to automatic advancing to
another level, such as achieving shared savings or meeting quality
goals.
Response: As stated in the November 2011 final rule (76 FR 19534),
we continue to believe that the Shared Savings Program should provide
an entry point for all willing organizations that wish to move in a
direction of providing value-driven healthcare. We also continue to
believe in the importance of encouraging ACOs to progress to greater
performance-based risk to drive quality improvement and efficiency in
care delivery. Doing otherwise could encourage ACOs to remain under a
one-sided model, or under comparatively low levels of performance-based
risk, without strong incentives to become accountable for the cost and
quality of care for their assigned populations. We also note that some
commenters (as summarized elsewhere in this final rule) agreed with
CMS' emphasis on the importance of two-sided risk as a driver of more
meaningful change. For this reason, we decline the commenters'
suggestion to forgo the automatic advancement policy to progress
eligible ACOs through the levels of risk and potential reward of the
BASIC track's glide path, or to create a policy where we evaluate and
determine whether each individual ACO will be required to enter higher
levels of performance-based risk. We are finalizing our proposed
approach to require automatic advancement along the BASIC track's glide
path, although we note we are finalizing a modification to allow new
legal entities that are low revenue ACOs and inexperienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives the option to forgo
automatic advancement to Level C to remain in Level B for an additional
performance year, and then be automatically advanced to Level E.
Comment: Generally, most commenters supported the design of Levels
C and D of the BASIC track, stating that they would create new
opportunities for ACOs to experiment with downside risk. One commenter
believed that the creation of Levels C and D of the BASIC track would
empower healthcare providers to move to risk and create a ladder for
ACOs to becoming an Advanced APM. However, as previously summarized in
this section of the final rule, several commenters expressed concern
about the proposed 30 percent shared savings rate in Level C of the
BASIC track and 40 percent shared savings rate in Level D of the BASIC
track and offered a variety of alternative maximum shared savings rates
that they believed would incentivize ACOs to remain in the program and
take on risk. Other commenters suggested additional changes to the
design of Levels C and D. For example, one commenter recommended that
Levels C and D of the BASIC track should include a shared savings rate
of 80 percent balanced by an increase in shared risk levels to meet
Advanced APM criteria. Another commenter suggested that advancement on
the glide path should be optional, Levels C and D of the BASIC track
could include a 50 percent shared savings rate, and if providers do not
transition to greater risk within a set time period, the shared savings
rate would decrease to 25 percent savings rate or lower.
Response: As we previously discussed in this section of this final
rule, after considering the commenters' suggestions for adjusting the
shared savings rates for ACOs participating in Levels A through D of
the BASIC track, we are modifying our proposal to allow for first
dollar savings at a rate of up to 50 percent based on quality
performance, not to exceed 10 percent of updated benchmark, for all
ACOs participating in Level C and Level D of the BASIC track.
Therefore, we decline to adopt the commenters' alternative suggestions.
Namely, we decline to establish additional levels within the BASIC
track's glide path (other than Level E) that qualify as an Advanced
APM. We believe that ACOs that are ready for higher levels of risk and
reward should transition more rapidly to Level E of the BASIC track, or
to the ENHANCED track, which qualify as Advanced APMs. Further, we
decline to establish a policy that would allow ACOs to forgo the
transition to higher levels of risk and potential reward in exchange
for incrementally decreasing shared savings rates. We believe this
could create a circumstance where poorly performing ACOs seek to
continue their participation under relatively lower risk while taking
advantage of other aspects of program participation. We believe that a
policy to forgo the transition to higher levels of risk would
effectively maintain the status quo of the program and would eliminate
any incentive for many ACOs to transition to meaningful levels of
performance-based risk.
Comment: Many commenters supported the permanent inclusion of the
Track 1+ Model equivalent, Level E of the BASIC track, in the Shared
Savings Program. A commenter stated that it is an important option for
ACOs assuming downside financial risk and allows loss sharing limits
similar to those for Advanced APMs in the Quality Payment Program. A
few commenters were concerned about the level of risk and shared
savings rates associated with Level E of the BASIC track. Commenters
recommended a variety of shared savings rates for Level E, ranging from
55 to 100 percent. For example, several commenters proposed that CMS
change the final shared savings rate to 60 percent with a goal of 75
percent shared savings based on quality performance
[[Page 67850]]
and other program criteria. Another commenter recommended that CMS set
the maximum shared savings rate at 100 percent, particularly as the
Next Generation ACO Model sunsets.
Response: We thank commenters for their support of the proposal to
offer the level of risk and potential reward under the proposed Level E
of the BASIC track, which is the same as level of risk and potential
reward under the popular Track 1+ Model and would meet all of the
Advanced APM criteria to be an Advanced APM under the Quality Payment
Program. We believe there is sufficient reward in Level E as proposed,
since in addition to the shared savings potential of this financial
model, an ACO's eligible clinicians may be eligible for incentive
payments under the Quality Payment Program because of the ACO's
participation in an Advanced APM. Therefore, we decline to increase the
50 percent shared savings rate under Level E of the BASIC track based
on commenters' suggestions. We believe that allowing more manageable
levels of risk and moderate levels of potential reward under Level E
within the Shared Savings Program will be an important pathway for
helping organizations gain experience with performance-based risk while
participating in Advanced APMs for purposes of the Quality Payment
Program.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the level of risk
associated with Level E of the BASIC track should be the nominal risk
standard under MACRA and consistent with Quality Payment Program
standards. The commenters suggested that CMS decrease the benchmark-
based level of risk under Level E to be the expenditure-based nominal
amount standard rather than the proposal to set the level of maximum
losses as 1 percentage point higher than the expenditure-based nominal
amount standard. For example, to reduce the percentage from 4 percent
of updated benchmark (proposed approach) to 3 percent. One commenter
stated that setting the benchmark-based level of risk at 4 percent
rather than 3 percent would disproportionately affect ACOs with
hospital participants and subject them to additional risk. A few other
commenters noted that CMS did not provide a rationale for setting the
benchmark-based loss limit at the nominal standard plus one percentage
point. One commenter suggested that aligning the loss sharing limit
with the MACRA standard would create alignment between the Quality
Payment Program and Shared Savings Program. Finally, one commenter
noted that, to enable participation and set ACOs up for success, CMS
should rely on a revenue-based risk structure and that any expenditure-
based nominal risk amount should be kept low to avoid placing
physician-led and low revenue ACOs at a disadvantage.
Response: After reviewing the commenter's concerns, we decline to
align the benchmark-based loss sharing limit for Level E with the
expenditure-based nominal amount standard for APM models established
under the Quality Payment Program. As we explained in the August 2018
proposed rule, our proposal maintains consistency between the level of
risk and potential reward offered under Level E and the Track 1+ Model
(83 FR 41805). We believe the level of risk and potential reward
proposed in Level E, which would provide more limited downside risk
than is currently present in Tracks 2 and 3, offers ACOs the
opportunity to participate and gain experience with more limited
performance-based risk. Our experience, with 55 ACOs choosing to
participate the first year the Track 1+ Model was available, suggests
that this approach will encourage ACOs, especially small, rural and
physician-only ACOs, to advance to performance-based risk and provide a
viable on-ramp for ACOs to assume greater amounts of risk in the
future.
Comment: A majority of commenters supported CMS' proposal to use a
revenue-based approach to calculate ACO loss sharing limits and the
proposal to cap and set the loss sharing limits at a percentage of an
ACO's updated historical benchmark. One commenter commended CMS for
recognizing that ACOs differ significantly in their ability to accept
financial risk and for including limits on downside risk based on a
percentage of the ACO participants' revenue, not just as a percentage
of Medicare spending.
Response: We thank commenters for their support of the proposal to
offer a relatively lower level of performance-based risk under the
BASIC track, calculated as a percentage of ACO participants' total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue not to exceed an amount that is a
percentage of the ACO's updated historical benchmark.
Comment: Some commenters encouraged CMS to retain use of quality
scores in the shared loss methodology calculation as a part of the
BASIC track. These commenters believe that improved quality for
Medicare beneficiaries has always been a cornerstone of the program and
should continue to be a vital part of both shared savings and shared
losses calculations. Another commenter was concerned that CMS' decision
not to apply quality measure performance to the loss rate under the
BASIC track sends the wrong message to providers about the importance
of quality measurement and performance. The commenter believes that CMS
should apply a sliding scale quality measure adjustment to the loss
rate to minimize the repayment by ACOs that are able to achieve high-
quality outcomes.
Response: We are declining to include quality scoring in the loss
calculation methodology for the two-sided models under the BASIC track.
Under the Track 1+ Model, we established a fixed 30 percent loss
sharing rate, which is lower than the loss sharing rate, based on
quality performance, under Track 2 and the ENHANCED track, which is at
least 40 percent. We designed the BASIC track's glide path to gradually
introduce ACOs to greater risk and reward and all ACOs are eventually
expected to move to the ENHANCED track where the loss sharing rate will
include adjustments for quality performance. Quality performance is
important to the program and the design of the financial model is not
meant in any way to compromise the goal of improving quality, which is
integrally related to the potential upside in all levels of the BASIC
track. We believe that the lower, fixed loss sharing rate provides a
more manageable level of risk for ACOs transitioning to risk in the
BASIC track.
Final Action: After considering the comments we received, we are
finalizing with modifications our proposal to codify policies in a new
section of the Shared Savings Program regulations governing the BASIC
track, at Sec. 425.605. Specifically, we are finalizing the BASIC
track's glide path with five levels. For each PY starting after January
1, 2020, ACOs in the glide path will be automatically progressed to the
next level of the glide path. ACOs eligible for the glide path that
have not participated in the Shared Savings Program previously, and
that are not regarded as re-entering ACOs related to the prior
participation of their ACO participants, can enter the glide path at
any Level. ACOs that previously participated in Track 1, or a new ACO
identified as a re-entering ACO because more than 50 percent of its ACO
participants have recent prior experience in a Track 1 ACO, would be
ineligible to enter the glide path at Level A but would be eligible to
begin in Level B.
We are modifying our proposed maximum shared savings rates and are
finalizing shared savings rates of 40 percent for Levels A and B and 50
[[Page 67851]]
percent for Levels C, D, and E of the BASIC track. We are finalizing as
proposed the methodology for determining shared losses for Levels C, D,
and E, as follows:
Level C: A loss sharing rate of 30 percent regardless
of the quality performance of the ACO would apply to first dollar
shared losses for ACOs with losses meeting or exceeding their MLR,
not to exceed 2 percent of total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue
for ACO participants. If the loss sharing limit as a percentage of
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for ACO participants
exceeds the amount that is 1 percent of the ACO's updated historical
benchmark, then the loss sharing limit would be capped and set at 1
percent of the ACO's updated historical benchmark for the applicable
performance year. This level of risk is not sufficient to meet the
generally applicable nominal amount standard for Advanced APMs under
the Quality Payment Program specified in Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i).
Level D: A loss sharing rate of 30 percent regardless
of the quality performance of the ACO would apply to first dollar
shared losses for ACOs with losses meeting or exceeding their MLR,
not to exceed 4 percent of total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue
for ACO participants. If the loss sharing limit as a percentage of
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for ACO participants
exceeds the amount that is 2 percent of the ACO's updated historical
benchmark, then the loss sharing limit would be capped and set at 2
percent of the ACO's updated historical benchmark for the applicable
performance year. This level of risk is not sufficient to meet the
generally applicable nominal amount standard for Advanced APMs under
the Quality Payment Program specified in Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i).
Level E: A loss sharing rate of 30 percent regardless
of the quality performance of the ACO would apply to first dollar
shared losses for ACOs with losses meeting or exceeding their MLR.
The percentage of ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue used to determine the revenue-based loss sharing limit would
be set for each performance year consistent with the generally
applicable nominal amount standard for an Advanced APM under Sec.
414.1415(c)(3)(i)(A). The ACO's revenue-based loss sharing limit
would not exceed its benchmark-based loss sharing limit, but would
be capped at that amount.
Finally, if an ACO enters the BASIC track's glide path in a one-
sided model and is unable to meet the requirements to participate under
performance-based risk prior to being automatically transitioned to a
performance year under risk, CMS would terminate the ACO's agreement
under Sec. 425.218.
The financial model of the BASIC track is summarized in Table 3,
which also includes a summary of the design of the ENHANCED track (for
comparison).
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 67852]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.003
[[Page 67853]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.004
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
(3) Calculation of Loss Sharing Limit
As described in the August 2018 proposed rule, under the Track 1+
Model, either a revenue-based or a benchmark-based loss sharing limit
is applied based on the Track 1+ Model ACO's self-reported composition
of ACO participants as identified by TINs and CCNs, and the ownership
of and operational interests in those ACO participants. We noted our
concerns about use of self-reported information for purposes of
determining the loss sharing limit in the context of the permanent,
national program. The purpose of capturing information on the types of
entities that are Track 1+ Model ACO participants and the ownership and
operational interests of those ACO participants, as reported by ACOs
applying to or participating in the Track 1+ Model, is to differentiate
between those ACOs that are eligible for the lower level of risk
potentially available under the revenue-based loss sharing limit and
those that are subject to the benchmark-based loss sharing limit. For
purposes of our proposal to establish the BASIC track in the permanent
program, we reconsidered this method of identifying which ACOs are
eligible for the revenue-based or benchmark-based loss sharing limits.
One concern regarding the Track 1+ Model approach is the burden imposed
on ACOs and CMS resulting from reliance on self-reported information.
Under the Track 1+ Model, ACOs must collect information about their ACO
participant composition and about ownership and operational interests
from ACO participants, and potentially others in the TINs' and CCNs'
ownership and operational chains, and assess this information to
accurately answer questions as required by CMS.\14\ These questions are
complex and ACOs' ability to respond accurately could vary. Self-
reported information is also more complex for CMS to audit. As a
result, the use of ACOs' self-reported information in the permanent
program could become burdensome for CMS to validate and monitor to
ensure program integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Medicare Shared Savings Program, Medicare ACO Track 1+
Model, and SNF 3-Day Rule Waiver, 2018 Application Reference Manual,
version #3, July 2017 (herein 2018 Application Reference Manual),
available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/MSSP-Reference-Table.pdf (see
``Appendix F. Application Reference Table--For Medicare ACO Track 1+
Model Applicants'', including definitions for institutional
providers and ownership and operational interests for the purpose of
the Track 1+ Model).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed that a simpler approach that achieves similar results
to the use of self-reported information would be to consider the total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of ACO participants (TINs and CCNs)
based on claims data, without directly considering their ownership and
operational interests (or those of related entities), based on our
[[Page 67854]]
experience with the initial application cycle for the Track 1+ Model.
As part of the application cycle for the 2018 performance year under
the Track 1+ Model, CMS gained experience with calculating estimates of
ACO participant revenue to compare with estimates of ACO benchmark
expenditures, for purposes of determining the repayment mechanism
amounts for the Track 1+ Model (as described in section II.A.6.c. of
this final rule). The methodology for determining repayment mechanism
amounts follows a similar bifurcated approach to the one used to
determine the applicable loss sharing limit under the Track 1+ Model.
Specifically, for ACOs eligible for a revenue-based loss sharing limit,
when the specified percentage of estimated total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS revenue for ACO participants exceeds a specified percentage of
estimated historical benchmark expenditures, the benchmark-based
methodology is applied to determine the ACO's loss sharing limit, which
serves to cap the revenue-based amount (see Track 1+ Model Fact Sheet
for a brief description of the repayment mechanism estimation
methodology). Based on our calculations of repayment mechanism amounts
for Track 1+ Model ACOs, we observed a high correlation between the
loss sharing limits determined using an ACO's self-reported
composition, and its ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue. For ACOs that reported including an ACO participant that was
an IPPS hospital, cancer center or rural hospital with more than 100
beds, or that was owned or operated by, in whole or in part, such a
hospital or by an organization that owns or operates such a hospital,
the estimated total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for the ACO
participants tended to exceed an estimate of the ACO's historical
benchmark expenditures for assigned beneficiaries. For ACOs that
reported that they did not include an ACO participant that met these
ownership and operational criteria, the estimated total Medicare Parts
A and B FFS revenue for the ACO participants tended to be less than an
estimate of the ACO's historical benchmark expenditures.
We recognized that this analysis was informed by the definitions
for ownership and operational interests, and the definitions for IPPS
hospital, cancer center and rural hospital with 100 or more beds, used
in the Track 1+ Model. However, we stated that these observations from
the Track 1+ Model supported a more generalizable principle about the
extent to which ACOs can control total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
expenditures for their assigned beneficiaries, and therefore their
readiness to take on lower or higher levels of performance-based risk.
In the proposed rule and in this final rule, we use the phrases
``ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue'' and
``total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries'' in the discussion of certain proposed policies. For
brevity, we sometimes use shorter phrases instead. For instance, we may
refer to ACO participant Medicare FFS revenue, or expenditures for the
ACO's assigned beneficiaries.
Based on our experience with the Track 1+ Model, we proposed an
approach under which the loss sharing limit for BASIC track ACOs would
be determined as a percentage of ACO participants' total Medicare Parts
A and B FFS revenue that is capped at a percentage of the ACO's updated
historical benchmark expenditures when the amount that is a certain
percentage of ACO participant FFS revenue (depending on the BASIC track
risk/reward level) exceeds the specified percentage of the ACO's
updated historical benchmark expenditures for the relevant BASIC track
risk/reward level. Under our proposed approach, we would not directly
consider the types of entities included as ACO participants or
ownership and operational interests in ACO participants in determining
the loss sharing limit that would apply to ACOs under Levels C, D, and
E of the BASIC track. We stated our belief that ACOs whose ACO
participants have greater total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue
relative to the ACO's benchmark are better financially prepared to move
to greater levels of risk. Accordingly, this comparison of revenue to
benchmark would provide a more accurate method for determining an ACO's
preparedness to take on additional risk than an ACO's self-reported
information regarding the composition of its ACO participants and any
ownership and operational interests in those ACO participants.
We explained that ACOs that include a hospital billing through an
ACO participant TIN are generally more capable of accepting higher risk
given their control over a generally larger amount of their assigned
beneficiaries' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures relative
to their ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue. As
a result, our proposed approach would tend to place ACOs that include
hospitals under a benchmark-based loss sharing limit because their ACO
participants typically have higher total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue compared to the ACO's benchmark. Less often, the ACO
participants in an ACO that includes a hospital billing through an ACO
participant TIN have low total Medicare Part A and B FFS revenue
compared to the ACO's benchmark. Under a claims-based approach to
determining the ACO's loss sharing limit, ACOs with hospitals billing
through ACO participant TINs and relatively low ACO participant FFS
revenue would be under a revenue-based loss sharing limit.
To illustrate, Table 4 compares two approaches to determining loss
liability: A claims-based approach (proposed approach) and self-
reported composition (approach used for the Track 1+ Model). The table
summarizes information regarding ACO participant composition reported
by the Track 1+ Model applicants for performance year 2018 and
identifies the percentages of applicants whose self-reported
composition would have placed the ACO under a revenue-based loss
sharing limit or a benchmark-based loss sharing limit. The table then
indicates the outcomes of a claims-based analysis applied to this same
cohort of applicants. This analysis indicates the proposed claims-based
method produces a comparable result to the self-reported composition
method. Further, this analysis suggests that under a claims-based
method, ACOs that include institutional providers with relatively low
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue would be placed under a revenue-
based loss sharing limit, which may be more consistent with their
capacity to assume risk than an approach that considers only the
inclusion of certain institutional providers among the ACO participants
and their providers/suppliers (TINs and CCNs).
[[Page 67855]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.005
Using ACO participant Medicare FFS revenue to determine the ACO's
loss sharing limit balances several concerns. For one, it allows CMS to
make a claims-based determination about the ACO's loss limit instead of
depending on self-reported information from ACOs. This approach would
also alleviate the burden on ACOs of gathering information from ACO
participants about their ownership and operational interests and
reporting that information to CMS, and would address CMS' concerns
about the complexity of auditing the information reported by ACOs.
We proposed to establish the revenue-based loss sharing limit as
the default for ACOs in the BASIC track and to phase-in the percentage
of ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue. However,
if the amount that is the applicable percentage of ACO participants'
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue exceeds the amount that is the
applicable percentage of the ACO's updated benchmark based on the
previously described phase-in schedule, then the ACO's loss sharing
limit would be capped and set at this percentage of the ACO's updated
historical benchmark. We sought comment on this proposal.
We considered issues related to the generally applicable nominal
amount standard for Advanced APMs in our development of the revenue-
based loss sharing limit under Level E of the proposed BASIC track.
Under Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i)(A), the revenue-based nominal amount
standard is set at 8 percent of the average estimated total Medicare
Parts A and B revenue of all providers and suppliers in a participating
APM Entity for QP Performance Periods 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. We
proposed that, for the BASIC track, the percentage of ACO participants'
FFS revenue used to determine the revenue-based loss sharing limit for
the highest level of risk (Level E) would be set for each performance
year consistent with the generally applicable nominal amount standard
for an Advanced APM under Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i)(A), to allow eligible
clinicians participating in a BASIC track ACO subject to the revenue-
based loss sharing limit the opportunity to earn the Advanced APM
incentive payment when the ACO is participating under Level E. For
example, for performance years 2019 and 2020, this would be 8 percent
of ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue that
would be capped and set at 4 percent of the updated benchmark. As a
result, the proposed BASIC track at Level E risk/reward would meet all
of the criteria and be an Advanced APM.
Further, in the CY 2018 Quality Payment Program final rule with
comment period, we revised Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i)(A) to more clearly
indicate that the revenue-based nominal amount standard is determined
as a percentage of the revenue of all providers and suppliers in the
participating APM Entity (see 82 FR 53836 through 53838). Under the
Shared Savings Program, ACOs are composed of one or more ACO
participant TINs, which include all providers and suppliers that bill
Medicare for items and services that are participating in the ACO. See
definitions at Sec. 425.20. In accordance with Sec. 425.116(a)(3),
ACO participants must agree to ensure that each provider/supplier that
bills through the TIN of the ACO participant agrees to participate in
the Shared Savings Program and comply with all applicable requirements.
Because all providers/suppliers billing through an ACO participant TIN
must agree to participate in the program, for purposes of calculating
ACO revenue under the nominal amount standard for Shared Savings
Program ACOs, the FFS revenue of the ACO participant TINs is equivalent
to the FFS revenue for all providers/suppliers participating in the
ACO. Therefore, we intend to perform these revenue calculations at the
ACO participant level.
We proposed to calculate the loss sharing limit for BASIC track
ACOs in generally the same manner that is used under the Track 1+
Model. However, as discussed elsewhere in this section, we would not
rely on an ACO's self-reported composition as used in the Track 1+
Model to determine if the ACO is subject to a revenue-based or
benchmark-based loss sharing limit. Instead, we would calculate a
revenue-based loss sharing limit for all BASIC track ACOs, and cap this
amount as a percentage of the ACO's updated historical benchmark.
Generally, calculation of the loss sharing limit would include the
following steps:
Determine ACO participants' total Medicare FFS revenue,
which includes total Parts A and B FFS revenue for all providers and
suppliers that bill for items and services through the TIN, or a CCN
enrolled in Medicare under the TIN, of each ACO participant in the
ACO for the applicable performance year.
Apply the applicable percentage under the proposed
phase-in schedule (described in section II.A.3.b.(2). of this final
rule) to this total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for ACO
participants to derive the revenue-based loss sharing limit.
Use the applicable percentage of the ACO's updated
benchmark, instead of the revenue-based loss sharing limit, if the
loss sharing limit as a percentage of total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS revenue for ACO participants exceeds the amount that is the
specified percentage of the ACO's updated historical benchmark,
based on the phase-in schedule. In that case, the loss sharing limit
is capped and set at the applicable percentage of the ACO's updated
historical benchmark for the applicable performance year.
To illustrate, Table 5 provides a hypothetical example of the
calculation of the loss sharing limit for an ACO participating under
Level E of the BASIC track. This example would be relevant, under the
proposed policies,
[[Page 67856]]
for an ACO participating in Level E of the BASIC track for the
performance years beginning on July 1, 2019, and January 1, 2020, based
on the percentages of revenue and ACO benchmark expenditures specified
in generally applicable nominal amount standards in the Quality Payment
Program regulations. In this scenario, the ACO's loss sharing limit
would be set at $1,090,479 (8 percent of ACO participant revenue)
because this amount is less than 4 percent of the ACO's updated
historical benchmark expenditures. If in this scenario the ACO's
revenue would have been greater, and the revenue-based loss sharing
limit exceeded the benchmark-based loss sharing limit amount, the loss
sharing limit would be capped and set at the benchmark-based loss
sharing limit amount (in this example $3,736,453).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.006
More specifically, ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS revenue would be calculated as the sum of Medicare paid amounts on
all non-denied claims associated with TINs on the ACO's certified ACO
participant list, or the CCNs enrolled under an ACO participant TIN as
identified in the Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System
(PECOS), for all claim types used in program expenditure calculations
that have dates of service during the performance year, using 3 months
of claims run out. ACO participant Medicare FFS revenue would not be
limited to claims associated with the ACO's assigned beneficiaries, and
would instead be based on the claims for all Medicare FFS beneficiaries
furnished services by the ACO participant. Further, in calculating ACO
participant Medicare FFS revenue, we would not truncate a beneficiary's
total annual FFS expenditures or adjust to remove indirect medical
education (IME), disproportionate share hospital (DSH), or
uncompensated care payments or to add back in reductions made for
sequestration. ACO participant Medicare FFS revenue would include any
payment adjustments reflected in the claim payment amounts (for
example, under MIPS or Hospital Value Based Purchasing Program) and
would also include individually identifiable final payments made under
a demonstration, pilot, or time-limited program, and would be
determined using the same completion factor used for annual expenditure
calculations.
This approach to calculating ACO participant Medicare FFS revenue
is different from our approach to calculating benchmark and performance
year expenditures for assigned beneficiaries, which we truncate at the
99th percentile of national Medicare FFS expenditures for assignable
beneficiaries, and from which we exclude IME, DSH and uncompensated
care payments (see subpart G of the program's regulations). We truncate
expenditures to minimize variation from catastrophically large claims.
We note that truncation occurs based on an assigned beneficiary's total
annual Parts A and B FFS expenditures, and is not apportioned based on
services furnished by ACO participant TINs. See Medicare Shared Savings
Program, Shared Savings and Losses and Assignment Methodology
Specifications (May 2018, version 6) available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/program-guidance-and-specifications.html (herein Shared Savings and Losses and
Assignment Methodology Specifications, version 6). As discussed in
earlier rulemaking, we exclude IME, DSH and uncompensated care payments
from ACOs' assigned beneficiary expenditure calculations because we do
not wish to incentivize ACOs to avoid the types of providers that
receive these payments, and for other reasons described in earlier
rulemaking (see 76 FR 67919 through 67922, and 80 FR 32796 through
32799). But to accurately determine ACO participants' revenue for
purposes of determining a revenue-based loss sharing limit, we would
include total revenue uncapped by truncation and to include IME, DSH
and uncompensated care payments. These payments represent resources
available to ACO participants to support their operations and offset
their costs and potential shared losses, thereby increasing the ACO's
capacity to bear performance-based risk, which should be reflected in
the ACO's loss sharing limit. Excluding such payments could undercount
revenue and also could be challenging to implement, particularly
truncation, since it likely would require apportioning responsibility
for large claims among the ACO participants and non-ACO participants
from which the beneficiary may have received the services resulting in
the large claims.
Currently, for Track 2 and Track 3 ACOs, the loss sharing limit (as
a percentage of the ACO's updated benchmark) is determined each
performance year, at the time of financial reconciliation. Consistent
with this approach, we would determine the loss sharing limit for BASIC
track ACOs annually, at the time of financial reconciliation for each
performance year. Further, under the existing policies for the Shared
Savings Program, we adjust the historical benchmark annually for
changes in the ACO's certified ACO participant list. See Sec. Sec.
425.602(a)(8) and 425.603(b), (c)(8). See also the Shared Savings and
Losses and Assignment Methodology Specifications, version 6. Similarly,
the annual determination of a BASIC track ACO's loss sharing limit
would reflect changes in ACO composition based on changes to the ACO's
certified ACO participant list.
We proposed to codify these policies in a new section of the Shared
Savings Program regulations governing the BASIC track, at Sec.
425.605. We sought comment on these proposals.
Comment: A few commenters had suggestions as to whether certain
payments or expenditures should be included in an ACO's benchmark. One
commenter recommended that CMS exclude payments from the CPC+ Model
[[Page 67857]]
in their entirety from the benchmark and expenditures on both a
retrospective and prospective basis. The commenter further recommended
that CMS update the historical benchmark to remove CPC+ Model payments
from the calculation of ACOs' expenditures as non-claims based
payments. Another commenter recommended that CMS exclude MIPS bonuses
from the determination of ACO expenditures because MIPS bonuses are
projected to rise in future program years, which may penalize ACOs in
comparison to their historical benchmark, and result in lower shared
savings or higher shared losses. The commenter questioned CMS'
treatment of these payments, stating that CMS currently excludes
Advanced APM incentive payments from ACO expenditures and recommended
that CMS do the same for MIPS expenditures.
Response: First, section 1833(z)(1)(C) of the Act provides that
incentive payments made to a Qualifying APM Participant (QP) should not
be taken into account for purposes of determining actual expenditures
under an alternative payment model and for purposes of determining or
rebasing any benchmarks used under the alternative payment model. Thus,
we will not include the Advanced APM incentive payments in calculation
of the ACOs expenditures. Second, the total per capita expenditures for
an ACO's assigned beneficiary population reflect services that are
furnished by ACO providers/suppliers and also by providers and
suppliers outside the ACO. As a result, the ACO only supplies a
fraction of the services represented in the total per capita
expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries. Therefore, the net
effect of MIPS adjustments on ACO expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiary population, would be variable and often small and would
depend on the mix of adjustments affecting the amount of payment for
services supplied to ACO assigned beneficiaries by all MIP eligible
clinicians, not just services that were supplied by ACO providers/
suppliers. Third, the Shared Savings Program regulations provide that
individually beneficiary identifiable final payments made under a
demonstration, pilot or time limited program will be included in the
calculation of Medicare Part A and Part B expenditures for the ACO's
assigned beneficiary population for purposes of establishing the
historical benchmark and determining performance year expenditures.
CPC+ Model payments are individually beneficiary identifiable final
payments made under such a model, and therefore are included in the
ACO's expenditures for purposes of establishing the financial benchmark
and calculating performance year expenditures. The CPC+ Model payments
and other non-claims based payments typically represent a small amount
of expenditures for a small number of ACO assigned beneficiaries, so
the impact of final non-claims based payments on an ACO's historical
benchmark or performance year expenditures is likely to be minimal.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the approach to
calculating revenue used in determining the loss sharing limits under
the BASIC track. These commenters explained that CMS proposed to
include hospital add-on payments such as Indirect Medical Education
(IME), Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH), and uncompensated care
payments when calculating an ACO's ACO participant revenue for purposes
of determining the loss sharing limit. These commenters pointed out
that CMS will exclude these payments when calculating assigned
beneficiary expenditures for determining benchmark and performance year
expenditures. These commenters urged CMS to exclude add-on payments in
determining an ACO's ACO participant revenue as well, suggesting that
the proposed approach could penalize ACOs with ACO participants that
treat vulnerable populations, including teaching hospitals and those
that treat the uninsured population.
Response: We discuss related considerations in our discussion of
the determination of whether an ACO qualifies as a low revenue ACO or a
high revenue ACO in section II.A.5.b. of this final rule. To accurately
determine ACO participants' revenue for purposes of determining a
revenue-based loss sharing limit, we explain that it is important to
include total revenue uncapped by truncation and to include IME, DSH
and uncompensated care payments. As noted earlier in this section and
discussed in greater detail in section II.A.5.b, this approach to
calculating ACO participant Medicare FFS revenue is different from our
approach to calculating benchmark and performance year expenditures for
assigned beneficiaries, which we truncate at the 99th percentile of
national Medicare FFS expenditures for assignable beneficiaries, and
from which we exclude IME, DSH and uncompensated care payments (see
subpart G of the program's regulations). IME, DSH, uncompensated care
payments represent resources available to ACO participants to support
their operations and offset their costs and potential shared losses,
thereby increasing the ACO's capacity to bear performance-based risk,
which we believe should be reflected in the ACO's loss sharing limit.
Excluding such payments could undercount revenue and also could be
challenging to implement, particularly truncation, since it likely
would require apportioning responsibility for large claims among the
ACO participants and non-ACO participants from which the beneficiary
may have received the services resulting in the large claims. We
therefore decline to modify our approach to determining ACO
participant's total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue to include IME,
DSH and uncompensated care payments, or to cap claim payment amounts
through truncation.
For similar reasons, we also decline at this time to make other
technical adjustments to calculations of revenue to exclude any other
payment adjustments reflected in the claim payment amounts, such as
payments under MIPS or the Hospital Value Based Purchasing Program.
Final Action: We are finalizing the approach to calculating ACO
participants' Medicare FFS revenue used in the determination of the
loss sharing limits under the BASIC track as proposed.
4. Permitting Annual Participation Elections
a. Overview
Background on our consideration of and stakeholders' interest in
allowing ACOs the flexibility to elect different participation options
within their current agreement period is described in section II.A.1.
of this final rule. In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41810
through 41813), we proposed policies to allow ACOs in the BASIC track's
glide path to annually elect to take on higher risk and to allow ACOs
in the BASIC track and ENHANCED track to annually elect their choice of
beneficiary assignment methodology (either preliminary prospective
assignment with retrospective reconciliation or prospective
assignment).
b. Permitting Election of Differing Levels of Risk Within the BASIC
Track's Glide Path
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41810 through 41813), we
proposed to incorporate additional flexibility in participation options
by allowing ACOs
[[Page 67858]]
that enter an agreement period under the BASIC track's glide path an
annual opportunity to elect to enter higher levels of performance-based
risk within the BASIC track within their agreement period. This
flexibility would be important for ACOs entering the glide path under
either the one-sided model (Level A or Level B) or the lowest level of
risk (Level C) that may seek to transition more quickly to higher
levels of risk and potential reward. (We note that an ACO entering the
glide path at Level D would be automatically transitioned to Level E in
the following year, and an ACO that enters the glide path at Level E
must remain at this level for the duration of its agreement period and
any subsequent agreement period under the BASIC track, if eligible.)
In developing the proposed policy, we considered that an ACO under
performance-based risk has the potential to induce more meaningful
systematic change in providers' and suppliers' behavior. We also
considered that an ACO's readiness for greater performance-based risk
may vary depending on a variety of factors, including the ACO's
experience with the program (for example, in relation to its elected
beneficiary assignment methodology, composition of ACO participants,
and benchmark value) and its ability to coordinate care and carry out
other interventions to improve quality and financial performance.
Lastly, we considered that an ACO may seek to more quickly take
advantage of the features of higher levels of risk and potential reward
within the BASIC track's glide path, including: Potential for greater
shared savings; increased ability for participating physicians and
practitioners to furnish telehealth services as provided under section
1899(l) of the Act, use of a SNF 3-day rule waiver, and the opportunity
to establish a CMS-approved beneficiary incentive program (described in
sections II.B and II.C. of this final rule); and the opportunity to
participate in an Advanced APM under the Quality Payment Program after
progressing to Level E of the BASIC track's glide path.
We explained that restricting ACOs from moving from the BASIC track
to the ENHANCED track within their current agreement period would
protect the Trust Funds. This would guard against selective
participation in a financial model with the highest potential level of
reward while the ACO remains subject to a benchmark against which it is
very confident of its ability to generate shared savings. However,
under the proposal to eliminate the sit-out period for re-entry into
the program after termination (see discussion in section II.A.5.c. of
this final rule), an ACO (such as a BASIC track ACO) may terminate its
participation agreement and quickly enter a new agreement period under
a different track, if eligible (such as the ENHANCED track).
We proposed to add a new section of the Shared Savings Program
regulations at Sec. 425.226 to govern annual participation elections.
Specifically, we proposed to allow an ACO in the BASIC track's glide
path to annually elect to accept higher levels of performance-based
risk, available within the glide path, within its current agreement
period. We proposed that the annual election for a change in the ACO's
level of risk and potential reward must be made in the form and manner,
and according to the timeframe, established by CMS. We also proposed
that an ACO executive who has the authority to legally bind the ACO
must certify the election to enter a higher level of risk and potential
reward within the agreement period. We proposed that the ACO must meet
all applicable requirements for the newly selected level of risk, which
in the case of ACOs transitioning from a one-sided model to a two-sided
model include establishing an adequate repayment mechanism and electing
the MSR/MLR that will apply for the remainder of their agreement period
under performance-based risk. (See section II.A.6. of this final rule
for a detailed discussion of these requirements.) We proposed that the
ACO must elect to change its participation option before the start of
the performance year in which the ACO wishes to begin participating
under a higher level of risk and potential reward. We envisioned that
the timing of an ACO's election would generally follow the timing of
the Shared Savings Program's application cycle.
The ACO's participation in the newly selected level of risk and
potential reward, if approved, would be effective at the start of the
next performance year. In subsequent years, the ACO may again choose to
elect a still higher level of risk and potential reward (if a higher
risk/reward option is available within the glide path). Otherwise, the
automatic transition to higher levels of risk and potential reward in
subsequent years would continue to apply to the remaining years of the
ACO's agreement period in the glide path. We also proposed related
changes to Sec. 425.600 to reflect the opportunity for ACOs in the
BASIC track's glide path to transition to higher risk and potential
reward during an agreement period.
For example, if an eligible ACO enters the glide path in year 1 at
Level A (one-sided model) and elects to enter Level D (two-sided model)
for year 2, the ACO would automatically transition to Level E (highest
level of risk/reward under the BASIC track) for year 3, and would
remain in Level E for year 4 and year 5 of the agreement period. We
note that ACOs starting in the BASIC track's glide path for an
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, could elect to enter a
higher level of risk/reward within the BASIC track in advance of the
performance year beginning on January 1, 2020.
In general, we wish to clarify that the proposal to allow ACOs to
elect to transition to higher levels risk and potential reward within
an agreement period in the BASIC track's glide path would not alter the
timing of benchmark rebasing under the proposed new section of the
regulations at Sec. 425.601. For example, if an ACO participating in
the BASIC track's glide path transitions to a higher level of risk and
potential reward during its agreement period, the ACO's historical
benchmark would not be rebased as a result of this change. We would
continue to assess the ACO's financial performance using the historical
benchmark established at the start of the ACO's current agreement
period, as adjusted and updated consistent with the benchmarking
methodology under the proposed new provision at Sec. 425.601.
Comment: Overall, commenters supported CMS' proposal to permit an
annual opportunity to elect to enter higher levels of performance-based
risk, if available, within the BASIC track within an ACO's agreement
period. One commenter suggested this is a good policy for CMS because
it allows CMS to achieve its goal of shifting more ACOs into higher
levels of risk. The commenter also suggested it is a good policy for
ACOs because it gives them greater flexibility. Some commenters
proposed allowing an ACO that elected to advance to a higher level
early to remain at the higher level until it reaches the PY when it
would have automatically advanced to the next successive level, absent
the ACO's election to advance more quickly than the glide path
required. A few commenters supported the proposal to allow annual
election of risk and skipping to higher levels, but encouraged CMS to
allow ACOs to glide backward and select a lower level of risk if they
jumped ahead and their losses exceeded their MLR for the level they
skipped or if the ACO found that it was not ready to bear risk.
Commenters suggested this added flexibility would encourage ACOs to
experiment with risk as commenters suggested that CMS intended.
[[Page 67859]]
Response: We appreciate the commenters' suggestions related to
options for ACOs to elect varying levels of risk along the glide path.
As we have discussed in this final rule, we believe there are
incentives for increased efficiency when ACOs are in a two-sided risk
track. Our goal continues to be to advance ACOs to taking on higher
levels of risk. Our experience with the Track 1+ Model has shown that
ACOs are willing to accept the amount of risk in Level E of the BASIC
track. ACOs should evaluate whether they are able to undertake greater
risk before electing to move to a higher level of risk and ensure that
the ACO has the operational capabilities in place to assume higher
risk. Therefore, we decline to adopt these suggestions and are
finalizing the glide path that transitions ACOs to higher levels of
risk throughout the agreement period.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that ACOs be allowed to move
from the BASIC track to the ENHANCED track within their agreement
period. One commenter proposed that CMS allow ACOs to jump BASIC levels
to the ENHANCED track without an application process, asserting that
this policy would create unnecessary administrative burden. Another
commenter recommended removal of restrictions preventing ACOs that
begin at the BASIC track's Level E from moving up to the ENHANCED track
without an interruption to their existing participation agreement or
the redetermination of benchmarks. The commenter explained its
preference that all levels of gainsharing and risk assumption be on a
single platform to facilitate the continuous movement to higher levels
of risk and potential reward. One commenter seemed to suggest an
alternative approach to allow low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs to
transition from the BASIC track to the ENHANCED track within a single
agreement period, and then potentially return to the BASIC track if
they discovered that they were unprepared to take on the higher level
of risk.
Response: As noted in the preamble, we continue to believe it is
protective of the Trust funds to restrict ACOs from moving from the
BASIC track to the ENHANCED track within the ACO's current agreement
period. This would guard against selective participation in a financial
model with the highest potential level of reward while the ACO remains
subject to a benchmark against which it is very confident of its
ability to generate savings. We decline at this time to accept
commenters' suggestions to allow the flexibility for ACOs to move
between the levels of risk and reward under the ENHANCED track and the
BASIC track within a single agreement period. ACOs seeking to make this
transition could elect to terminate their participation agreement under
the BASIC track and ``renew early'' to enter the ENHANCED (see
discussion in section II.A.5.c of this final rule), for example, which
would result in rebasing of the ACO's historical benchmark.
We did not receive any comments on our proposals requiring: (1)
Annual election of the change in the ACO's level of risk and potential
reward in the form and manner, and according to the timeframe,
established by CMS; (2) certification by an ACO executive who has the
authority to legally bind the ACO of any election to enter a higher
level of risk and potential reward within the agreement period; (3) the
ACO to meet all applicable requirements for the newly selected level of
risk, which in the case of ACOs transitioning from a one-sided model to
a two-sided model include establishing an adequate repayment mechanism
and electing the MSR/MLR that will apply for the remainder of the ACO's
agreement period under performance-based risk; or (4) the ACO to elect
to change its participation option before the start of the performance
year in which the ACO wishes to begin participating under a higher
level of risk and potential reward, if available (generally following
the timing of the Shared Savings Program's application cycle).
Final Action: After considering the comments concerning the annual
election of differing levels of risk along the BASIC track's glide
path, we are finalizing the policies as proposed. Specifically, we are
finalizing policies to allow an ACO in the BASIC track's glide path to
annually elect to accept higher levels of performance-based risk,
available within the glide path, within its current agreement period.
If an ACO decides to elect a higher level of performance-based risk
during their agreement period, it will make the election in the form
and manner specified by CMS. Additionally, we are finalizing the
requirement that ACOs must meet all applicable requirements for the
newly selected level of risk, which in the case of ACOs transitioning
from a one-sided model to a two-sided model include establishing an
adequate repayment mechanism and electing the MSR/MLR that will apply
for the remainder of their agreement period under performance-based
risk. Accordingly, we are finalizing as proposed the new Sec. 425.226
and related changes at Sec. 425.600.
c. Permitting Annual Election of Beneficiary Assignment Methodology
Section 1899(c)(1) of the Act, as amended by section 50331 of the
Bipartisan Budget Act, provides that the Secretary shall determine an
appropriate method to assign Medicare FFS beneficiaries to an ACO based
on utilization of primary care services furnished by physicians in the
ACO and, in the case of performance years beginning on or after January
1, 2019, services provided by a FQHC or RHC. The provisions of section
1899(c) of the Act govern beneficiary assignment under all tracks of
the Shared Savings Program. Although, to date, we have designated which
beneficiary assignment methodology will apply for each track of the
Shared Savings Program, section 1899(c) of the Act (including as
amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act) does not expressly require that
the beneficiary assignment methodology be determined by track.
Under the Shared Savings Program regulations, we have established
two claims-based beneficiary assignment methods (prospective assignment
and preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation) that currently apply to different program tracks, as
well as a non-claims based process for voluntary alignment (discussed
in section II.E.2. of the August 2018 proposed rule) that applies to
all program tracks and is used to supplement claims-based assignment.
The regulations governing the assignment methodology under the Shared
Savings Program are in 42 CFR part 425, subpart E. In the November 2011
final rule, we adopted a claims-based hybrid approach (called
preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation)
for assigning beneficiaries to an ACO (76 FR 67851 through 67870),
which is currently applicable to ACOs participating under Track 1 or
Track 2 of the Shared Savings Program (except for Track 1 ACOs that are
also participating in the Track 1+ Model for which we use a prospective
assignment methodology in accordance with our authority under section
1115A of the Act). Under this approach, beneficiaries are preliminarily
assigned to an ACO, based on a two-step assignment methodology, at the
beginning of a performance year and quarterly thereafter during the
performance year, but final beneficiary assignment is determined after
the performance year based on where beneficiaries chose to receive the
plurality of their primary care services during the performance year.
Subsequently, in the June 2015
[[Page 67860]]
final rule, we implemented an option for ACOs to participate in a new
performance-based risk track, Track 3 (80 FR 32771 through 32781).
Under Track 3, beneficiaries are prospectively assigned to an ACO at
the beginning of the performance year using the same two-step
methodology used in the preliminary prospective assignment approach,
based on where the beneficiaries have chosen to receive the plurality
of their primary care services during a 12-month assignment window
offset from the calendar year that reflects the most recent 12 months
for which data are available prior to the start of the performance
year. The ACO is held accountable for beneficiaries who are
prospectively assigned to it for the performance year. Under limited
circumstances, a beneficiary may be excluded from the prospective
assignment list, such as if the beneficiary enrolls in MA during the
performance year or no longer lives in the United States or U.S.
territories and possessions (as determined based on the most recent
available data in our beneficiary records regarding residency at the
end of the performance year).
Finally, in the CY 2017 PFS final rule (81 FR 80501 through 80510),
we augmented the claims-based beneficiary assignment methodology by
finalizing a policy under which beneficiaries, beginning in 2017 for
assignment for performance year 2018, may voluntarily align with an ACO
by designating a ``primary clinician'' (referred to as a ``main
doctor'' in the prior rulemaking) they believe is responsible for
coordinating their overall care using MyMedicare.gov, a secure, online,
patient portal. Notwithstanding the assignment methodology in Sec.
425.402(b), beneficiaries who designate an ACO professional whose
services are used in assignment as responsible for their overall care
will be prospectively assigned to the ACO in which that ACO
professional participates, provided the beneficiary meets the
eligibility criteria established at Sec. 425.401(a) and is not
excluded from assignment by the criteria in Sec. 425.401(b), and has
had at least one primary care service during the assignment window with
an ACO professional in the ACO who is a primary care physician or a
physician with one of the primary specialty designations included in
Sec. 425.402(c). Such beneficiaries will be added prospectively to the
ACO's list of assigned beneficiaries for the subsequent performance
year. See section V.B.2.b. of the November 2018 final rule for a
discussion of the new provisions regarding voluntary alignment added to
section 1899(c) of the Act by section 50331 of the Bipartisan Budget
Act, and our related proposed regulatory changes.
Section 50331 of the Bipartisan Budget Act specifies that, for
agreement periods entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2020,
ACOs in a track that provides for retrospective beneficiary assignment
will have the opportunity to choose a prospective assignment
methodology, rather than the retrospective assignment methodology, for
the applicable agreement period. The Bipartisan Budget Act incorporates
this requirement as a new provision at section 1899(c)(2)(A) of the
Act.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41811 through 41813), we
proposed to implement this provision of the Bipartisan Budget Act to
provide all ACOs with a choice of prospective assignment for agreement
periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years. We also
proposed to incorporate additional flexibility into the beneficiary
assignment methodology consistent with the Secretary's authority under
section 1899(c)(1) of the Act to determine an appropriate beneficiary
assignment methodology. We do not believe that section 1899(c) of the
Act, as amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act, requires that we must
continue to specify the applicable beneficiary assignment methodology
for each track of the Shared Savings Program. Although section
1899(c)(2)(A) of the Act now provides that ACOs must be permitted to
choose prospective assignment for each agreement period, we do not
believe this requirement limits our discretion to allow ACOs the
additional flexibility to change beneficiary assignment methodologies
more frequently during an agreement period. As summarized in section
II.A.1. of this final rule and as described in detail in earlier
rulemaking, commenters have urged us to allow greater flexibility for
ACOs to select their assignment methodology. Accordingly, we proposed
an approach that separates the choice of beneficiary assignment
methodology from the choice of participation track (financial model),
and that allows ACOs to make an annual election of assignment
methodology. Such an approach would afford greater flexibility for ACOs
to choose between assignment methodologies for each year of the
agreement period, without regard to their participation track.
Consistent with the requirements of the Bipartisan Budget Act, we will
offer all Shared Savings Program ACOs the opportunity to select their
assignment methodology annually, starting with agreement periods
beginning on July 1, 2019.
As an approach to meeting the requirements of the Bipartisan Budget
Act while building on them to offer greater flexibility, we proposed to
offer ACOs entering agreement periods in the BASIC track or ENHANCED
track, beginning on July 1, 2019 and in subsequent years, the option to
choose either prospective assignment or preliminary prospective
assignment with retrospective reconciliation, prior to the start of
their agreement period (at the time of application). We also proposed
to provide an opportunity for ACOs to switch their selection of
beneficiary assignment methodology on an annual basis. As we explained
in the August 2018 proposed rule, under this approach, in addition to
the requirement under the Bipartisan Budget Act that ACOs be permitted
to change from retrospective assignment to prospective assignment, an
ACO would have the added flexibility to change from prospective
assignment to preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation. As an additional flexibility that further builds on the
Bipartisan Budget Act, ACOs would be allowed to retain the same
beneficiary assignment methodology for an entire agreement period or to
change the methodology annually. An individual ACO's preferred choice
of beneficiary assignment methodology may vary depending on the ACO's
experience with the two assignment methodologies used under the Shared
Savings Program. Therefore, this proposed approach implements the
requirements of the Bipartisan Budget Act and will also be responsive
to stakeholders' suggestions that we allow additional flexibility
around choice of beneficiary assignment methodology to facilitate ACOs'
transition to performance-based risk (as discussed earlier in this
section). Further, allowing this additional flexibility for choice of
beneficiary assignment methodology within the proposed BASIC track and
ENHANCED track would enable ACOs to select a combination of
participation options that would overlap with certain features of Track
2, and thus lessen the need to maintain Track 2 as a separate
participation option. Accordingly, as discussed in section II.A.2. of
this final rule, we proposed to discontinue Track 2. Finally, we
believed it would be appropriate and reasonable to start offering the
choice of beneficiary assignment to ACOs in the BASIC track or ENHANCED
track for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and
[[Page 67861]]
in subsequent years, in order to align with the availability of these
two tracks under the proposed redesign of the Shared Savings Program.
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we proposed that, in addition to
choosing the track to which it is applying, an ACO would choose the
beneficiary assignment methodology at the time of application to enter
or re-enter the Shared Savings Program or to renew its participation
for another agreement period. If the ACO's application is accepted, the
ACO would remain under that beneficiary assignment methodology for the
duration of its agreement period, unless the ACO chooses to change the
beneficiary assignment methodology through the annual election process.
We also proposed that the ACO must indicate its desire to change
assignment methodology before the start of the performance year in
which it wishes to begin participating under the alternative assignment
methodology. The ACO's selection of a different assignment methodology
would be effective at the start of the next performance year, and for
the remaining years of the agreement period, unless the ACO again
chooses to change the beneficiary assignment methodology. For example,
if an ACO selects preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation at the time of its application to the program for an
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, this methodology would
apply in the ACO's first performance year (6-month performance year
from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019) and all subsequent
performance years of its agreement period, unless the ACO selects
prospective assignment in advance of the start of performance year
2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, or 2024. To continue this example, during its
first performance year, the ACO would have the option to select
prospective assignment to be applicable beginning with performance year
2020. If selected, this assignment methodology would continue to apply
unless the ACO again selects a different methodology.
We proposed to incorporate the requirements governing the ACO's
initial selection of beneficiary assignment methodology and the annual
opportunity for an ACO to notify CMS that it wishes to change its
beneficiary assignment methodology within its current agreement period,
in a new section of the Shared Savings Program regulations at Sec.
425.226 along with the other annual elections described elsewhere in
this final rule. We proposed that the initial selection of, and any
annual selection for a change in, beneficiary assignment methodology
must be made in the form and manner, and according to the timeframe,
established by CMS. We also proposed that an ACO executive who has the
authority to legally bind the ACO must certify the selection of
beneficiary assignment methodology for the ACO. We envision that the
timing of this opportunity for an ACO to change assignment methodology
would generally follow the Shared Savings Program's application cycle.
For consistency, we also proposed to make conforming changes to
regulations that currently identify assignment methodologies according
to program track. Specifically, we proposed to revise Sec. Sec.
425.400 and 425.401 (assignment of beneficiaries), Sec. 425.702
(aggregate reports) and Sec. 425.704 (beneficiary-identifiable claims
data) to reference either preliminary prospective assignment with
retrospective reconciliation or prospective assignment instead of
referencing the track to which a particular assignment methodology
applies (currently Track 1 and Track 2, or Track 3, respectively).
We clarified that this proposal would have no effect on the
voluntary alignment process under Sec. 425.402(e). Because
beneficiaries may voluntarily align with an ACO through their
designation of a ``primary clinician,'' and eligible beneficiaries will
be prospectively assigned to that ACO regardless of the ACO's track or
claims-based beneficiary assignment methodology, an ACO's choice of
claims-based assignment methodology under this proposal would not alter
the voluntary alignment process.
As part of the proposed approach to allow ACOs to elect to change
their assignment methodology within their agreement period, we also
proposed to adjust the ACO's historical benchmark to reflect the ACO's
election of a different assignment methodology. Section
1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act addresses how ACO benchmarks are to be
established. This provision specifies that the Secretary shall estimate
a benchmark for each agreement period for each ACO using the most
recent available 3 years of per beneficiary expenditures for Parts A
and B services for Medicare FFS beneficiaries assigned to the ACO. Such
benchmark shall be adjusted for beneficiary characteristics and such
other factors as the Secretary determines appropriate.
As we explained in earlier rulemaking, we currently use differing
assignment windows to determine beneficiary assignment for the
benchmark years and performance years, according to the ACO's track and
the beneficiary assignment methodology used under that track. The
assignment window for ACOs under prospective assignment is a 12-month
period off-set from the calendar year, while for ACOs under preliminary
prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation, the
assignment window is the 12-month period based on the calendar year
(see 80 FR 32699, and 80 FR 32775 through 32776). However, for all
ACOs, the claims used to determine the per capita expenditures for a
benchmark or performance year are the claims for services furnished to
assigned beneficiaries from January 1 through December 31 of the
calendar year that corresponds to the applicable benchmark or
performance year (see for example, 79 FR 72812 through 72813, see also
80 FR 32776 through 32777). We explained that this approach removes
actuarial bias between the benchmarking and performance years for
assignment and financial calculations, since the same method would be
used to determine assignment and the financial calculations for each
benchmark and performance year. Further, basing the financial
calculations on the calendar year would be necessary to align with
actuarial analyses with respect to risk score calculations and other
data inputs based on national FFS expenditures used in program
financial calculations, which are determined on a calendar year basis
(79 FR 72813). To maintain symmetry between the benchmark and
performance year calculations it would be necessary to adjust the
benchmark for ACOs that change beneficiary assignment methodology
within their current agreement period to reflect changes in beneficiary
characteristics due to the change in beneficiary assignment
methodology, as provided in section 1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. For
example, if an ACO were to elect to change its applicable beneficiary
assignment methodology during its initial agreement period from
preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation to
prospective assignment, we would adjust the ACO's historical benchmark
for the current agreement period to reflect the expenditures of
beneficiaries that would have been assigned to the ACO during the
benchmark period using the prospective assignment methodology, instead
of the expenditures of the beneficiaries assigned under the preliminary
prospective assignment methodology that were used to establish the
benchmark at the start of the agreement period. Therefore, we proposed
to
[[Page 67862]]
specify in the proposed new section of the regulations at Sec. 425.601
that would govern establishing, adjusting, and updating the benchmark
for all agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent
years, that we will adjust an ACO's historical benchmark to reflect a
change in the ACO's beneficiary assignment methodology within an
agreement period. However, any adjustment to the benchmark to account
for a change in the ACO's beneficiary assignment methodology would not
alter the timing of benchmark rebasing under Sec. 425.601; the
historical benchmark would not be rebased as a result of a change in
the ACO's beneficiary assignment methodology.
We sought comment on these proposals.
Comment: Generally, commenters were supportive of the proposal
implementing section 1899(c)(2)(A) of the Act, as added by the
Bipartisan Budget Act, to allow all ACOs a choice of prospective
assignment for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in
subsequent performance years. They also supported CMS' proposal to
exercise its discretion to separate the choice of assignment
methodology from the choice of participation track (financial model)
and provide ACOs with additional flexibility to change beneficiary
assignment methodologies annually. Commenters praised these proposals
and provided various rationale for their support, stating that the
annual choice of assignment methodology for all ACOs:
Removes challenges caused by uncertainty of preliminary
prospective beneficiary assignment with retrospective
reconciliation, for ACOs that would be newly free to select
prospective assignment.
Offers some much-needed stability and allows for the
appropriate allocation of ACOs' finite resources, for ACOs that
would be newly free to select prospective assignment.
Assists ACOs in planning and designing care management
strategies.
Assists ACOs that, for care-driven reasons, may find it
difficult to adopt one methodology versus another.
Provides ACOs with more flexibility to manage their
patient populations based on their unique circumstances, care model,
and ability to taken on risk for the total cost of care.
Equals the playing field between different types of
ACOs.
Serves to increase ACO entity interest and
participation in the program. One commenter that generally supported
the proposal additionally suggested that CMS should provide accurate
and timely reporting (for example, year-to-year performance
comparisons based on the selected assignment methodology) so ACOs
can analyze trends and results in a timely manner and be in a
position to make an annual determination.
A few commenters offered alternatives to CMS' proposal. One
commenter encouraged CMS to develop an approach that offers only
preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation so
providers can target high-risk patients for care management throughout
the program period. The commenter asserted that this would improve
accuracy at the end of the year because ACOs would likely be held
accountable for the patients they coordinated care for during the
performance year. One ACO commenter supported the annual option of
prospective or preliminary prospective assignment and requested that
the option chosen have no effect on the shared savings rate for
ENHANCED track ACOs (a maximum of 75 percent). One commenter
recommended that the choice of assignment only be exercised once during
the term of the participation agreement to prevent ongoing gaming of
the system by switching attribution models based upon financial
arbitrage rather than focusing on care redesign. Finally, a commenter
was concerned about the effect of late reporting on the selection of
assignment methodology.
Response: CMS appreciates the enthusiasm of the commenters and the
overwhelming support received. In this final rule, and consistent with
Section 1899(c)(2)(a) of the Act, we are providing ACOs flexibility in
their choice of beneficiary assignment methodology. We agree that
timely reporting and data collection are crucial for ACOs to make an
informed assignment selection; and under Sec. 425.702, we provide ACOs
with aggregate quarterly reports that identify prospective and
preliminary prospective assigned beneficiaries as well as utilization
and expenditure data. Under Sec. 425.704, we provide ACOs with monthly
claim and claim line feed files. We provide the aggregate reports and
monthly claim and claim line feed files to provide ACOs with data to
aid them in making informed decisions regarding their participation in
the program. We believe this information will may help them determine
the assignment methodology that best suits their ACO and ACO
participants. We confirm that an ACO's annual beneficiary assignment
election has no effect on the maximum 75 percent shared savings rate
for ENHANCED track ACOs. We disagree with one of the commenter's
assertion that the election should only occur once during the contract
term to prevent gaming by switching attribution models based on
financial arbitrage. We believe the flexibility will allow ACOs to
determine the best assignment methodology for their unique
organizational structure. We do not believe that allowing ACOs to
change their assignment methodology on an annual basis provides a
gaming opportunity; we will continue to determine assignment based upon
where beneficiaries receive the plurality of their primary care
services and whether beneficiaries have designated an ACO professional
as their primary clinician, responsible for their overall care, and
hold ACOs accountable for the resulting assigned beneficiary
population. Although we recognize that, for some ACOs, there may be
some financial impact, since the choice of assignment may change the
ACO's historical benchmark and subsequently impact expenditure
calculations, we believe that the program-wide impact will be minimal.
Thus, we are finalizing as proposed the opportunity for ACOs to select
the applicable assignment methodology annually.
Comment: Several commenters sought clarification on CMS' proposal
and recommended that CMS clarify the following:
What the process will be for assignment and what
communications would be involved;
When would the ACOs election of beneficiary assignment
methodology occur and the process for the election to be made (would
this occur during the annual certification process or as a separate
process);
Is the ACO required to make an election every year or
would they continue in the same methodology unless they make a
proactive selection each year;
How the preliminary prospective with retrospective
reconciliation versus prospective methodology would impact shared
savings and shared losses calculations;
Whether there will be full disclosure to beneficiaries
upon assignment to an ACO and expectations as to the network of
providers;
Whether assigned beneficiaries can receive care outside
of an ACO at any given time; and
Process for beneficiaries to opt-out of assignment.
Response: CMS plans to align the annual selection of an assignment
methodology (preliminary prospective with retrospective reconciliation
or prospective assignment) with the application cycle. During this
period, an ACO may either retain or change its current assignment
selection that would become effective at the beginning of the next
performance year. We are planning on automating the assignment
methodology selection and will provide
[[Page 67863]]
further clarification in sub-regulatory guidance on the assignment
selection process. As proposed, ACOs may select the assignment
methodology that CMS employs for assignment of beneficiaries, ACOs are
not required to make an election each year. CMS is establishing a
system and process so that we can quickly and accurately execute ACOs'
assignment methodology changes. We want to emphasize that the term
``assignment'' for purposes of the Shared Savings Program in no way
implies any limits, restrictions, or diminishment of the rights of
Medicare FFS beneficiaries to exercise freedom of choice in the
physicians and other health care practitioners from whom they receive
covered services, nor will the policy allowing ACOs to annually choose
an assignment methodology have any effect on the voluntary alignment
process under Sec. 425.402(e).
Concerning the impact of an ACO changing their assignment
methodology during an agreement period, we note the program's
calculations for establishing historical benchmarks and performance
year reconciliation are performed consistently across all ACOs
participating in the Shared Savings Program. We do not modify our
benchmark year or performance year calculations based upon the
assignment methodology.
In addition, as explained in section II.C.3.a, we are modifying our
proposed revisions to the current beneficiary notice requirements at
Sec. 425.312 to require each ACO or its ACO participants to provide
each beneficiary with a standardized written notice that explains that
the ACO's providers/suppliers are participating in the Shared Savings
Program. The ACO or its ACO participant would be required to provide
this notice prior to or at the beneficiary's first primary care visit
of each performance year in the form and manner that we specify in
subregulatory guidance. We anticipate that the template notice will
explain what an ACO provider or supplier's participation in an ACO
means for the beneficiary's care and that the beneficiary has the right
to receive care from any provider or supplier that accepts Medicare.
ACOs and ACO participants may also provide additional information that
they have determined to be useful when notifying beneficiaries about
their participation in an ACO, consistent with the marketing
requirements at Sec. 425.310.
The Shared Savings Program voluntary alignment methodology (Sec.
425.402(e)) allows beneficiaries to designate their primary clinician
on MyMedicare.gov. Under the revisions to the voluntary alignment
methodology that were finalized in the November 2018 final rule (83 FR
59960), if a beneficiary selects an ACO professional as their primary
clinician, the beneficiary will be prospectively assigned to the ACO,
unless the beneficiary has been aligned to an entity participating in a
model tested or expanded under section 1115A of the Act under which
claims-based assignment is based solely on claims for services other
than primary care services and for which there has been a determination
by the Secretary that waiver of the requirement in section
1899(c)(2)(B) of the Act is necessary solely for purposes of testing
the model. If a beneficiary determines that he/she does not want to be
assigned to an ACO, the beneficiary may log into MyMedicare.gov and
designate a clinician that is not participating in an ACO as their
primary clinician. Beneficiaries assigned to an ACO remain free to seek
services wherever they choose, and assignment results only from a
beneficiary's exercise of that free choice by seeking and receiving
services from ACO participants or by selecting a primary clinician who
is participating in the ACO on MyMedicare.gov.
Comment: One commenter agreed with CMS' proposal for all agreement
periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent performance years,
to adjust the ACO's historical benchmark to reflect a change in the
ACO's beneficiary assignment methodology within the agreement period.
However, the commenter sought further clarification on how an ACO would
determine what impacts an assignment methodology change would have on
its performance.
Response: We note that under our proposed approach of allowing
choice of beneficiary assignment methodology, the populations used to
determine benchmark and performance year assignment would vary based on
the ACO's assignment methodology selection, however the benchmark
calculations and calculations for determining savings and losses would
be the same. Additionally, we provide ACOs with aggregate reports (see
Sec. 425.702) to help them trend their performance year over year.
When looking at a similar length of time (for example, 12 months) ACOs
can compare their performance from one year to the next. We believe
there are other changes ACOs voluntarily make from year to year that
may pose greater difficulty in terms of comparing ACO performance
between performance years, such as annual changes to the ACO
participant list.
Final Action: After considering the comments concerning our
proposals to allow ACOs to annually elect their beneficiary assignment
methodology, we are finalizing the proposal as proposed. Specifically,
we will offer ACOs entering agreement periods in the BASIC track or
ENHANCED track, beginning July 1, 2019 and in subsequent years, the
option to choose either prospective assignment or preliminary
prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation, prior to the
start of their agreement period (at the time of application). We will
also provide an opportunity for ACOs to switch their selection of
beneficiary assignment methodology on an annual basis. We are
finalizing as proposed the new section at Sec. 425.226. Additionally,
we are finalizing as proposed the conforming changes at Sec. Sec.
425.400 and 425.401 (assignment of beneficiaries), Sec. 425.702
(aggregate reports) and Sec. 425.704 (beneficiary-identifiable claims
data) to reference either preliminary prospective assignment with
retrospective reconciliation or prospective assignment instead of
referencing the track to which a particular assignment methodology
applies.
5. Determining Participation Options Based on Medicare FFS Revenue and
Prior Participation
a. Overview
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41813 through 41836), we
described considerations related to, and proposed policies for,
distinguishing among ACOs based on their degree of control over total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for their assigned
beneficiaries by identifying low revenue ACOs versus high revenue ACOs,
experience of the ACO's legal entity and ACO participants with the
Shared Savings Program and performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives, and prior performance in the Shared Savings Program. Based
on operational experience and considerations related to our proposal to
extend the length of an agreement period under the program from 3 to
not less than 5 years for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019
and in subsequent years, we identified the following programmatic areas
for further policy development.
First, differentiating between ACOs based on their degree of
control over total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for their
assigned beneficiaries would allow us to transition high revenue ACOs
more
[[Page 67864]]
quickly to higher levels of performance-based risk under the ENHANCED
track, rather than remaining in a lower level of risk under the BASIC
track. We stated our aim to drive more meaningful systematic change in
high revenue ACOs which have greater potential to control total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for their assigned
beneficiaries and in turn the potential to drive significant change in
spending and coordination of care for assigned beneficiaries across
care settings. We also aimed to encourage continued participation by
low revenue ACOs, which control a smaller proportion of total Medicare
Parts A and B FFS expenditures for their assigned beneficiaries, and
thus may be encouraged to continue participation in the program by
having additional time under the BASIC track's revenue-based loss
sharing limits (capped at a percentage of benchmark) before
transitioning to the ENHANCED track.
Second, differentiating between ACOs that are experienced and
inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives to
determine their eligibility for participation options would allow us to
prevent experienced ACOs from taking advantage of options designed for
inexperienced ACOs, namely lower levels of performance-based risk.
Third, it would be timely to clarify the differences between ACOs
applying to renew their participation agreements and ACOs applying to
re-enter the program after a break in participation, and to identify
new ACOs as re-entering ACOs if greater than 50 percent of their ACO
participants have recent prior participation in the same ACO in order
to hold these ACOs accountable for their ACO participants' experience
with the program. We stated our aim to provide a more consistent
evaluation of these ACOs' prior performance in the Shared Savings
Program at the time of reapplication. We also aimed to update policies
to identify the agreement period an ACO is entering into for purposes
of benchmark calculations and quality performance requirements that
phase-in as the ACO gains experience in the program, as appropriate for
renewing ACOs, re-entering ACOs, and new program entrants.
Fourth, and lastly, we believed it would be appropriate to modify
the evaluation criteria for prior quality performance to be relevant to
ACOs' participation in longer agreement periods and introduce a
monitoring approach for and evaluation criterion related to financial
performance to prevent underperforming ACOs from remaining in the
program.
b. Differentiating Between Low Revenue ACOs and High Revenue ACOs
In section II.A.5.b of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41814
through 41820), we proposed to differentiate between the participation
options available to low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs, through
the following: (1) Proposals for defining ``low revenue ACO'' and
``high revenue ACO'' relative to a threshold of ACO participants' total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue compared to total Medicare Parts A
and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries for the
same 12 month period; and (2) proposals for establishing distinct
participation options for low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs, with
the availability of multiple agreement periods under the BASIC track as
the primary distinction. We also considered approaches to allow greater
potential for reward for low revenue ACOs, such as by reducing the MSR
ACOs must meet to share in savings during one-sided model years of the
BASIC track's glide path, or allowing higher sharing rates based on
quality performance during the first 4 years in the glide path.
In this section of this final rule we summarize and respond to
comments on the proposed approach to differentiating between low
revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs. We summarize and respond to
comments on the proposed MSR for ACOs in one-sided model years of the
BASIC track's glide path in section II.A.6.b of this final rule,
including comments on our consideration of applying a different MSR to
low revenue ACOs. We summarize and respond to comments on the sharing
rate based on quality performance in the BASIC track's glide path in
section II.A.3. of this final rule, including comments on our
consideration of applying a different sharing rate to low revenue ACOs.
(1) Identifying Low Revenue ACOs and High Revenue ACOs
As discussed in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41814 through
41817), to define low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs for purposes
of determining ACO participation options, we considered the
relationship between an ACO's degree of control over the Medicare Parts
A and B FFS expenditures for its assigned beneficiaries and its
readiness to accept higher or lower degrees of performance-based risk.
We explained that an ACO's ability to control the expenditures of its
assigned beneficiary population can be gauged by comparing the total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of its ACO participants to total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures of its assigned beneficiary
population. Thus, high revenue ACOs, which typically include a hospital
billing through an ACO participant TIN, are generally more capable of
accepting higher risk, given their control over a generally larger
amount of their assigned beneficiaries' total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS expenditures. In contrast, lower risk options could be more
suitable for low revenue ACOs, which have control over a smaller amount
of their assigned beneficiaries' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
expenditures.
In the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the August 2018 proposed rule
(see 83 FR 41917), we described an approach for differentiating low
revenue ACOs versus high revenue ACOs that reflects the amount of
control ACOs have over total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures
for their assigned beneficiaries. Under this analysis, an ACO was
identified as low revenue if its ACO participants' total Medicare Parts
A and B FFS revenue for assigned beneficiaries was less than 10 percent
of the ACO's assigned beneficiary population's total Medicare Parts A
and B FFS expenditures. In contrast, an ACO was identified as high
revenue if its ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue for assigned beneficiaries was at least 10 percent of the ACO's
assigned beneficiary population's total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
expenditures. As further explained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis of
the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41917), nationally, evaluation and
management spending accounts for about 10 percent of total Parts A and
B per capita spending. Because beneficiary assignment principally is
based on allowed charges for primary care services, which are highly
correlated with evaluation and management spending, we concluded that
identifying low revenue ACOs by applying a 10 percent limit on the ACO
participants' Medicare FFS revenue for assigned beneficiaries in
relation to total Medicare Parts A and B expenditures for these
beneficiaries would be likely to capture all ACOs that were solely
comprised of ACO providers/suppliers billing for Medicare PFS services,
and generally exclude ACOs with ACO providers/suppliers that bill for
inpatient or other institutional services for their assigned
beneficiaries. We considered this approach as an option for
distinguishing between low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs.
However, we explained our concern that this approach does not
sufficiently account for ACO participants' total
[[Page 67865]]
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue (as opposed to their revenue for
assigned beneficiaries), and therefore could misrepresent the ACO's
overall risk bearing potential, which would diverge from other aspects
of the proposed design of the BASIC track. We believed it would be
important to consider ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS revenue for all FFS beneficiaries, not just assigned beneficiaries,
as a factor in assessing an ACO's readiness to accept performance-based
risk. The total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of the ACO
participants could be indicative of whether the ACO participants, and
therefore potentially the ACO, are more or less capitalized. For
example, ACO participants with high levels of total Medicare Parts A
and B FFS revenue are presumed to be better capitalized, and may be
better positioned to contribute to repayment of any shared losses owed
by the ACO. Further, the proposed methodologies for determining the
loss sharing limit under the BASIC track (see section II.A.3. of the
August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41801 through 41810)) and the
estimated repayment mechanism values for BASIC track ACOs (see section
II.A.6.c. of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41840 through
41842)), included a comparison of a specified percentage of ACO
participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for all Medicare
FFS beneficiaries to a percentage of the ACO's updated historical
benchmark expenditures for its assigned beneficiary population.
Accordingly, we proposed that if ACO participants' total Medicare
Parts A and B FFS revenue exceeds a specified threshold of total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries, the ACO would be considered a high revenue ACO, while
ACOs with a percentage less than the threshold amount would be
considered a low revenue ACO. In determining the appropriate threshold,
we considered our claims-based analysis comparing estimated revenue and
benchmark values for Track 1+ Model applicants (see 83 FR 41807 through
41808). We believed setting the threshold at 25 percent would tend to
categorize ACOs that include institutional providers as ACO
participants or as ACO providers/suppliers billing through the TIN of
an ACO participant, as high revenue because their ACO participants'
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue would likely significantly
exceed 25 percent of total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for
the ACO's assigned beneficiaries. Among Track 1+ Model ACOs that self-
reported as eligible for the Model's benchmark-based loss sharing limit
because of the presence of an ownership or operational interest by an
IPPS hospital, cancer center or rural hospital with more than 100 beds
among their ACO participants, we compared estimated total Medicare
Parts A and B FFS revenue for ACO participants to estimated total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries. We found that self-reported composition and high revenue
determinations made using the 25 percent threshold were in agreement
for 96 percent of ACOs. For two ACOs, the proposed approach would have
categorized the ACOs as low revenue ACOs and therefore allowed for a
potentially lower loss sharing limit than the self-reported method.
We believed small, physician-only and rural ACOs would tend to be
categorized as low revenue ACOs because their ACO participants' total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue would likely be significantly less
than total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's
assigned beneficiaries. Among Track 1+ Model ACOs that self-reported to
be eligible for the Model's revenue-based loss sharing limit because of
the absence of an ownership or operational interest by the previously
described institutional providers among their ACO participants, we
compared estimated total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for ACO
participants to estimated total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures
for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries. We found the self-reported
composition and low revenue determinations made using the 25 percent
threshold were in agreement for 88 percent of ACOs. The proposed
approach would move ACOs with higher revenue to a higher loss sharing
limit, while continuing to categorize low revenue ACOs, which are often
composed of small physician practices, rural providers, and those
serving underserved areas, as eligible for potentially lower loss
sharing limits. Further, based on initial modeling with performance
year 2016 program data, ACOs for which the total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS revenue of their ACO participants was less than 25 percent of the
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries tended to have either no or almost no inpatient revenue
and generally showed stronger than average financial results compared
to higher revenue ACOs.
We believed these observations were generalizable and suggested our
proposal to use ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue to classify ACOs would serve as a proxy for ACO participant
composition. The proposed approach generally would categorize ACOs that
include hospitals, health systems or other providers and suppliers that
furnish Part A services as ACO participants or ACO providers/suppliers
as high revenue ACOs, while categorizing ACOs with ACO participants and
ACO providers/suppliers that mostly furnish Part B services as low
revenue ACOs. Accordingly, we proposed to use a 25 percent threshold to
determine low revenue ACOs versus high revenue ACOs by comparing total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of ACO participants to the total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries. Consistent with this proposal, we also proposed to add
new definitions at Sec. 425.20 for ``low revenue ACO,'' and ``high
revenue ACO.''
We proposed to define ``high revenue ACO'' to mean an ACO whose
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of its ACO participants based
on revenue for the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of
data are available, is at least 25 percent of the total Medicare Parts
A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries based on
expenditures for the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of
data are available.
We proposed to define ``low revenue ACO'' to mean an ACO whose
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of its ACO participants based
on revenue for the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of
data are available, is less than 25 percent of the total Medicare Parts
A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries based on
expenditures for the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of
data are available.
We also considered using a lower or higher percentage as the
threshold for determining low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs.
Specifically, we considered instead setting the threshold for ACO
participant revenue lower, for example at 15 percent or 20 percent of
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries. However, we were concerned a lower threshold could
categorize ACOs with more moderate revenue as high revenue ACOs, for
example because of the presence of multi-specialty physician practices
or certain rural or safety net providers (such as CAHs, FQHCs and
RHCs). Categorizing these moderate revenue ACOs as high revenue ACOs,
could require ACOs that have a smaller degree
[[Page 67866]]
of control over the expenditures of their assigned beneficiaries, and
ACOs that are not as adequately capitalized, to participate in a level
of performance-based risk that the ACO would not be prepared to manage.
We also considered setting the threshold higher, for example at 30
percent. We noted our concern that a higher threshold could
inappropriately categorize ACOs as low revenue when their ACO
participants have substantial total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue
and therefore an increased ability to influence expenditures for their
assigned beneficiaries and also greater access to capital to support
participation under higher levels of performance-based risk. We sought
comment on these alternative thresholds for defining ``low revenue
ACO'' and ``high revenue ACO.''
The proposed 12-month comparison period for determining whether an
ACO is a low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO was consistent with the
proposed 12 month period for determining repayment mechanism amounts
(as described in section II.A.6.c. of the August 2018 proposed rule (83
FR 41840 through 41842)). We explained that this approach could allow
us to use the same sources of revenue and expenditure data during the
program's annual application cycle to estimate the ACO's repayment
mechanism amount and to determine the ACO's participation options
according to whether the ACO is categorized as a low revenue ACO or
high revenue ACO. Additionally, for ACOs with a participant agreement
start date of July 1, 2019, we also proposed to determine whether the
ACO is a low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO using expenditure data
from the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of data are
available.
We noted that under this proposed approach to using claims data to
determine participation options, it would be difficult for ACOs to
determine at the time of application submission whether they would be
identified as a low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO. We explained that
after an ACO's application is submitted and before the ACO would be
required to execute a participation agreement, we would determine how
the ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for the
applicable calendar year compare to total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
expenditures for the ACO's assigned Medicare beneficiaries in the same
calendar year, provide feedback and then notify the applicant of our
determination of its status as a low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO.
We also considered using a longer look back period, for example,
using multiple years of revenue and expenditure data to identify low
revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs. For example, instead of using a
single year of data, we considered instead using 2 years of data (such
as the 2 most recent calendar years for which 12 months of data are
available). In evaluating ACOs applying to enter a new agreement period
in the Shared Savings Program, the 2 most recent calendar years for
which 12 months of data are available would align with the ACOs' first
and second benchmark years. While this approach could allow us to take
into account changes in the ACO's composition over multiple years, it
could also make the policy more complex because it could require
determinations for each of the 2 calendar years and procedures to
decide how to categorize ACOs if there were different determinations
for each year, for example, as a result of changes in ACO participants.
We sought comment on the alternative of using multiple years of data in
determining whether an ACO is a low revenue ACO or a high revenue ACO.
ACO participant list changes during the agreement period could
affect the categorization of ACOs, particularly for ACOs close to the
threshold percentage. We considered that an ACO may change its
composition of ACO participants each performance year, as well as
experience changes in the providers/suppliers billing through ACO
participants, during the course of its agreement period. Any approach
under which we would apply different policies to ACOs based on a
determination of ACO participant revenue would need to recognize the
potential for an ACO to add or remove ACO participants, and for the
providers/suppliers billing through ACO participants to change, which
could affect whether an ACO meets the definition of a low revenue ACO
or high revenue ACO. We explained our concern about the possibility
that an ACO may be eligible to continue for a second agreement period
in the BASIC track because of a determination that it is a low revenue
ACO at the time of application, and then quickly thereafter seek to add
higher-revenue ACO participants, thereby avoiding the requirement under
our proposed participation options to participate under the ENHANCED
track.
To protect against these circumstances, we proposed to monitor low
revenue ACOs experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives participating in the BASIC track, to determine if they
continue to meet the definition of low revenue ACO. This is because
high revenue ACOs experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives are restricted to participation in the ENHANCED track only.
We proposed to monitor these low revenue ACOs for changes in the
revenue of ACO participants and assigned beneficiary expenditures that
would cause an ACO to be considered a high revenue ACO and ineligible
for participation in the BASIC track. We are less concerned about the
circumstance where an ACO inexperienced with performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiatives enters an agreement period under the BASIC
track and becomes a high revenue ACO during the course of its agreement
because inexperienced, high revenue ACOs are also eligible for a single
agreement period of participation in the BASIC track.
We proposed the following approach to ensuring continued compliance
of ACOs with the proposed eligibility requirements for participation in
the BASIC track, for an ACO that was accepted into the BASIC track's
Level E because the ACO was experienced with performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiatives and determined to be low revenue at the time
of application. If, during the agreement period, the ACO meets the
definition of a high revenue ACO, we proposed that the ACO would be
permitted to complete the remainder of its current performance year
under the BASIC track, but would be ineligible to continue
participation in the BASIC track after the end of that performance year
unless it takes corrective action, for example by changing its ACO
participant list. We proposed to take compliance action, up to and
including termination of the participation agreement, as specified in
Sec. Sec. 425.216 and 425.218, to ensure the ACO does not continue in
the BASIC track for subsequent performance years of the agreement
period. For example, we may take pre-termination actions as specified
in Sec. 425.216, such as issuing a warning notice or requesting a
corrective action plan. To remain in the BASIC track, the ACO would be
required to remedy the issue. For example, if the ACO participants'
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue has increased in relation to
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries, the ACO could remove an ACO participant from its ACO
participant list, so that the ACO can meet the definition of low
revenue ACO. If corrective action is not taken, CMS would terminate the
ACO's
[[Page 67867]]
participation under Sec. 425.218. We proposed to revise Sec. 425.600
to include these requirements to account for changes in ACO participant
revenue during an agreement period.
We also considered two alternatives to the proposed claims-based
approach to differentiating low revenue ACOs versus high revenue ACOs,
which, as discussed, can also serve as a proxy for ACO participant
composition. One alternative would be to differentiate ACOs based
directly on ACO participant composition using Medicare provider
enrollment data and certain other data. Under this option we could
define ``physician-led ACO'' and ``hospital-based ACO'' based on an
ACO's composition of ACO participant TINs, including any CCNs
identified as billing through an ACO participant TIN, as determined
using Medicare enrollment data and cost report data for rural
hospitals. A second alternative to the claims-based approach to
distinguishing between ACOs based on their revenue would be to
differentiate between ACOs based on the size of their assigned
population (that is, small versus large ACOs). First, we considered
differentiating between physician-led and hospital-based ACOs by ACO
composition, determined based on the presence or absence of certain
institutional providers as ACO participants. We considered an approach
that deviates from the Track 1+ Model design to determining ACO
composition for the purposes of identifying whether the ACO is eligible
to participate under a benchmark-based or a revenue-based loss sharing
limit by using Medicare enrollment data and certain other data to
determine ACO composition rather than relying on ACOs' self-reported
information, and by using a different approach to identifying
institutional providers than applies under the Track 1+ Model.
Under this alternative approach, we could define a hospital-based
ACO as an ACO that includes a hospital or cancer center, but excluding
an ACO whose only hospital ACO participants are rural hospitals. As
used in this definition, a hospital could be defined according to Sec.
425.20. As defined under Sec. 425.20, ``hospital'' means a hospital as
defined in section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the Act. A cancer center could be
defined as a prospective payment system-exempt cancer hospital as
defined under section 1886(d)(1)(B)(v) of the Act (see CMS website on
PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/PPS_Exc_Cancer_Hospasp.html). Rural hospital could be a hospital
defined according to Sec. 425.20 that meets both of the following
requirements: (1) The hospital is classified as being in a rural area
for purposes of the CMS area wage index (as determined in accordance
with section 1886(d)(2)(d) or section 1886(d)(8)(E) of the Act); and
(2) The hospital reports total revenue of less than $30 million a year.
We could determine total revenue based on the most recently available
hospital 2552-10 cost report form or any successor form. In contrast,
we could define physician-led ACO as an ACO that does not include a
hospital or cancer center, except for a hospital that is a rural
hospital (as we previously described). Physician-led ACOs therefore
could also include certain hospitals that are not cancer centers, such
as CAHs.
Under this alternative approach to differentiating between ACOs we
would identify hospitals and cancer centers in our Medicare provider
enrollment files based on their Medicare enrolled TINs and/or CCNs. We
would include any CCNs identified as billing through an ACO participant
TIN, as determined using PECOS enrollment data and claims data. We
believe this alternative approach would provide increased transparency
to ACOs because ACOs could work with their ACO participants to identify
all facilities enrolled under their TINs to tentatively determine the
composition of their ACO, and thus, the available participation options
under the Shared Savings Program. However, this alternative approach to
categorizing ACOs deviates from the proposed claims-based approaches to
determining loss sharing limits and the repayment mechanism estimate
amounts for ACOs in the BASIC track using ACO participant Medicare FFS
revenue and expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries.
Second, we also considered differentiating between ACOs based on
the size of their assigned beneficiary population, as small versus
large ACOs. Under this approach, we could determine an ACO's
participation options based on the size of its assigned population. We
recognize that an approach that distinguishes between ACOs based on
population size would require that we set a threshold for determining
small versus large ACOs as well as to determine the assignment data to
use in making this determination (such as the assignment data used in
determining an ACO's eligibility to participate in the program under
the requirement that the ACO have at least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries
under Sec. 425.110). For instance, we considered whether an ACO with
fewer than 10,000 assigned beneficiaries could be defined as a small
ACO whereas an ACO with 10,000 or more assigned beneficiaries could be
defined as a large ACO. However, we currently have low revenue ACOs
participating in the program that have well over 10,000 assigned
beneficiaries, as well as high revenue ACOs that have fewer than 10,000
assigned beneficiaries. We believed a revenue-based approach would be a
more accurate means to measure the degree of control that ACOs have
over total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for their assigned
beneficiaries compared to an approach that only considers the size of
the ACO's assigned population.
We sought comment on the proposed definitions of ``low revenue
ACO'' and ``high revenue ACO''. We also sought comment on the
alternatives considered. Specifically, we sought comment on the
alternative of defining hospital-based ACO and physician-led ACO based
on an ACO's composition of ACO participant TINs, including any CCNs
identified as billing through an ACO participant TIN, as determined
using Medicare enrollment data and cost report data for rural
hospitals. In addition, we sought comment on the second alternative of
differentiating between ACOs based on the size of their assigned
population (that is, small versus large ACOs).
Comment: A few commenters generally supported the proposed use of a
distinction between low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs for
determining ACO participation options. One commenter explained its
belief that small ACOs in rural areas face challenges that large health
systems do not. A few commenters supported the distinction between low
and high revenue ACOs for determining ACO participation options but
suggested alternative approaches to implementing this policy as further
described in this section of this final rule. One commenter explained
that there is intuitive logic in the idea that risk tolerance should be
commensurate with organization size or financial wherewithal.
Response: We appreciate the support of the commenters who generally
favored the proposed approach and our related considerations.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns about the proposed
approach to identifying low revenue ACOs versus high revenue ACOs. A
few commenters requested that CMS not finalize the distinction to avoid
creating new blunt tools to define and categorize ACOs. Another
commenter explained that the proposed rule states that the
[[Page 67868]]
low revenue ACO versus high revenue ACO distinction is intended to
measure differences in the ability of the ACO to control total
spending, but the commenter believed the discussion suggested that the
real goal is to identify which ACO participants have more financial
resources and are less likely to be bankrupted by repaying losses to
CMS.
Response: We thank commenters for their careful consideration of
the proposed approach to identifying ACOs as low revenue ACOs versus
high revenue ACOs, and the related considerations discussed in section
II.A.5.b.(2) of this final rule for distinguishing participation
options of ACOs (in part) based on this determination.
We continue to believe that the total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue of the ACO participants could be indicative of whether the ACO
participants, and therefore potentially the ACO, are more or less
capitalized and thus able to accept higher levels of performance based
risk. We also believe that these higher levels of performance-based
risk for these organizations can act as a stronger catalyst for them to
redesign care, in conjunction with the new tools and flexibilities for
risk based ACOs and achieve program goals more quickly. For example,
ACO participants with high levels of total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue are presumed to be better capitalized, and may be better
positioned to contribute to repayment of any shared losses owed by the
ACO. To this extent we agree with the commenter that indicated that one
goal of the proposed approach is to place better capitalized ACOs under
participation options that are commensurate with their ability to take
on greater risk because they have the capacity to repay losses (if
owed).
We disagree with commenters' suggestions that we remain neutral to
whether an ACO has low revenue or high revenue in determining program
participation options. We continue to believe that all ACOs should
eventually participate under the program's highest level of risk and
potential reward, in the ENHANCED track, which could drive ACOs to more
aggressively pursue the program's goals of improving quality of care
and lowering growth in FFS expenditures for their assigned beneficiary
populations. For the reasons we have previously described in the August
2018 proposed rule and as restated in this final rule, we also continue
to believe that low revenue ACOs should be allowed additional time to
prepare to take on the higher levels of performance-based risk required
under the ENHANCED track. Therefore we continue to believe it is
necessary to distinguish participation options based on ACO
participants' Medicare FFS revenue (among other factors as described
elsewhere in this final rule).
Comment: Some commenters, including MedPAC, viewed favoring low
revenue ACOs over high revenue ACOs (or physician-only ACOs over ACOs
that include hospitals) as unnecessary. MedPAC pointed out that the
maximum risk under two-sided models of the proposed BASIC track already
accounts for the ACO participants' revenue, with low revenue or small
ACOs having relatively limited maximum risk in some cases compared to
high revenue ACOs. MedPAC explained that the automatic transition to
two-sided risk in the glide path will ensure that high revenue ACOs
transition to performance-based risk to prevent them from further
increasing spending and that low revenue ACOs that expect to achieve
savings should be willing to move into Level E in the glide path, which
has minimal risk and potentially greater reward.
Response: We agree with MedPAC that under the BASIC track's two-
sided models, where we determine the maximum loss liability based on
the higher of a percentage of ACO participants' Medicare FFS revenue or
a percentage of the ACO's updated benchmark, high revenue ACOs will be
at proportionally greater risk than low revenue ACOs. We disagree,
however, with commenters' suggestions that the same participation
options and therefore the same progression to higher levels of
performance-based risk should be made available to all ACOs. We
continue to believe that low revenue ACOs should be allowed additional
time to prepare to take on the higher levels of performance-based risk
required under the ENHANCED track and that high revenue ACOs should be
given stronger incentives over time to continue to transform care.
Therefore, we continue to believe it is necessary to distinguish
participation options based on ACO participants' Medicare FFS revenue
(among other factors, as described elsewhere in this final rule), and
disagree with commenters who argued that identifying ACOs as low
revenue ACOs versus high revenue ACOs is unnecessary.
Comment: Some commenters viewed the distinction between low revenue
ACOs and high revenue ACOs as arbitrary or unfounded. Some commenters
did not accept CMS' position that a greater level of control over
assigned beneficiaries' total Part A and Part B spending (``low revenue
ACOs'' versus ``high revenue ACOs'') necessarily should lead to better
performance or readiness to accept performance-based risk. Several
commenters described the concept that high revenue ACOs have a higher
degree of control over Part A and B expenditures and that they have
more control over the full continuum as a ``fallacy'' and
``fundamentally flawed''.
MedPAC explained that physician-only ACOs have, in effect, a larger
incentive to reduce hospital-provided services than ACOs in which
hospitals are also participating, because reduced expenditures for
costly hospital services represent forgone revenue for the hospital.
Similarly, another commenter explained that physician-led or physician-
dominated ACOs, particularly those led or dominated by primary care
physicians, can succeed in an ACO by providing more services
themselves, and thereby enhancing their own FFS revenue along the way,
and then cutting back on referrals, admissions, testing, and other
services that result in expenditures and correspondingly involve
revenues to some entity that is not part of the ACO. On the other hand,
an ACO led by a hospital or created as part of an integrated system
must cut its own FFS revenues at multiple levels to succeed. According
to this commenter, in principle, the latter type of ACO has more
``control'' over total spending, but ``control'' means intentionally
cutting back on Medicare volumes and revenues within its own network of
providers and suppliers. One commenter explained that the larger the
organization, the more time and effort it takes to gain collaboration
and navigate various systems, to achieve consensus and implement
changes. One commenter pointed to the discussion in the proposed rule
to suggest the opposite point, that the ACOs that have been relatively
more successful so far have been the smaller, physician-led ACOs that
have demonstrated strong financial performance despite having
relatively less ``control'' over total Part A and Part B spending (83
FR 41819).
Another commenter disagreed with CMS that hospitals can innately
influence Medicare FFS costs, and instead expressed that only
experienced ACO entities can exert this level of control because they
will have already developed preferred post-acute care networks,
educated them on cost and readmissions reduction, and included them as
ACO participants in order to exert meaningful control over total
beneficiary cost of care.
Response: We do not believe the proposed approach to distinguishing
[[Page 67869]]
low revenue ACOs versus high revenue ACOs is arbitrary or unfounded,
and it is informed by our early experience with the Track 1+ Model as a
means to differentiate the ability of ACOs to bear higher degrees of
performance-based risk. More specifically as we explained in the August
2018 proposed rule and reiterate in this final rule, our experience
with the Track 1+ Model demonstrates that ACO participants' Medicare
FFS revenue can serve as a proxy for self-reported composition. In
particular, higher Medicare FFS revenue among ACO participants in
relation to the ACO's benchmark expenditures tends to be indicative of
the presence of institutional providers in the ACO. We continue to
believe in the validity of the proposed approach as a means to identify
ACOs that are likely prepared to participate in greater levels of risk
after gaining experience with more modest levels of risk and to
mitigate the burden on ACOs (as compared to the Track 1+ Model) by not
requiring ACOs to self-report data about the ownership and operational
interests of their ACO participants, which, in addition, is difficult
for CMS to independently validate.
We disagree with commenters who suggest that ACO providers/
suppliers that bill for and receive payment for a proportionally
greater amount of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries' Part A and B
Medicare FFS expenditures and that have agreed to become accountable
for the total cost and quality of care they provide these
beneficiaries, are unable to effectively manage these costs in
proportion to their control over a relatively larger or smaller
proportion of assigned beneficiaries' expenditures.
Commenters provided examples of approaches ACOs may use to lower
FFS expenditures for their assigned beneficiaries, such as coordinating
post-acute care to avoid unnecessary readmissions, or focusing on the
provision of primary care services to avoid the need for more costly
specialty and facility-based services. We note that primary care
providers have a central role in the Shared Savings Program, for
instance as evidenced by the use of primary care services provided by
ACO participants as the basis for beneficiary assignment. In focusing
on primary care, ACOs may seek to reduce avoidable services by and
consequently payments to acute-care facilities (for example) under FFS
Medicare.
We also acknowledge that ACOs are composed differently and take a
variety of organizational forms, as is permitted under section
1899(b)(1) of the Act and through the program's regulations, at Sec.
425.102, describing the ACO participants or combinations of ACO
participants eligible to form an ACO. Based on our observations,
successful ACOs typically achieve lower growth in expenditures across
all claim types. We also acknowledge that the ability of an ACO to
succeed may be specific to its composition, governance and leadership,
factors specific to its market circumstances and the populations it
serves, as well as the ACO's individualized approach to meeting the
program's goals.
Further, we note the following in response to the commenter's
suggestion that there is an inconsistency between our belief that low
revenue ACOs have less control over assigned beneficiaries
expenditures, and therefore may be less capable of taking on higher
levels of two-sided-risk, and our findings based on program performance
results that low revenue ACOs have been relatively more successful so
far compared to high revenue ACOs. The levels of risk and reward for
each track of the Shared Savings Program ultimately are set based on
the ACO's benchmark. However, a comparison of the ACO's benchmark-based
risk and reward in relation to the total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue of the ACO participants highlights that ACOs with lower ACO
participant total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue have the potential
to incur both losses and savings that are a greater percentage of such
revenue than ACOs that are higher revenue. For example, consider a low
revenue ACO that has ACO participant total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue of $2,000,000 and benchmark expenditures of $100,000,000, so
the total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of the ACO participants
would be 2 percent of the ACO's benchmark expenditures. If this low-
revenue ACO then achieved savings of 3 percent of its benchmark
($3,000,000), and shared at a rate of 50 percent, the ACO would earn
$1,500,000 in shared savings. This shared savings amount would
represent 75 percent of the total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenues
of the ACO participants, providing a large incentive for this ACO to
continue to improve the quality of care and control costs for
beneficiaries. Next, consider a high revenue ACO that has ACO
participant total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of $200,000,000
but has the same benchmark as the low revenue ACO of $100,000,000. The
total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of the ACO participants in the
ACO would be 200 percent of the ACO's benchmark expenditures. If this
high revenue ACO then achieved the same savings of 3 percent of its
benchmark ($3,000,000), and shared at a rate of 50 percent, the ACO
would earn the same $1,500,000 in shared savings. This shared savings
amount would only represent 0.75 percent of the total Medicare Parts A
and B FFS revenues of the ACO participants, providing a much smaller
incentive for this ACO to improve care and control costs for
beneficiaries. We therefore believe that identifying ACOs as high
revenue ACOs and low revenue ACOs is an appropriate method to identify
which ACOs are more likely to demonstrate improved performance under
greater levels of risk and reward. Our historical results show that
these relatively greater incentives (for lower revenue ACOs, as shown
in the first example) may have influenced and supported the better
performance of low revenue ACOs compared to high revenue ACOs.
Comment: A few commenters offered an alternative suggestion for
making adjustments in financial rewards and penalties that would
directly measure the degree of control that ACOs have over total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for their assigned
beneficiaries, instead of using proxies that the commenters viewed as
problematic, such as the proportion of ACO participant revenues to
expenditures for assigned beneficiaries. These commenters suggested
this could be done by dividing services or spending into several
categories reflecting the relative levels of control that ACO
participants would be expected to have over services, and then
assigning different levels of reward potential (and risk) to each.
These categories could include spending for: Services delivered by ACO
participants; services ordered by ACO participants; services resulting
from potentially avoidable complications of services delivered or
ordered by ACO participants; and all other services.
One commenter suggested that CMS also distinguish between health
systems that are for-profit and not-for-profit, because not-for-profit
entities on average provide more uncompensated care than for-profit
entities.
Response: We prefer our proposed approach to distinguishing ACOs
based on a comparison of estimated total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue for ACO participants to estimated total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries because it is
simpler, allows for greater transparency, and is easier to validate. We
decline to adopt the alternative methodologies suggested by commenters.
For instance, we decline to increase the complexity of the
[[Page 67870]]
approach to distinguishing the degree of control ACO participants have
over expenditures of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries by dividing
services or spending into several categories (such as services
delivered by ACO participants, services ordered by ACO participants,
services resulting from potentially avoidable complications of services
delivered or ordered by ACO participants, and all other services), and
then assigning different levels of reward potential (and risk) to each
because the Shared Savings Program is a population-based model and ACOs
are accountable for the total cost of care rather than more segmented
expenditure components as currently exist under other parts of the
Medicare FFS program. We also decline to adopt an approach that only
considers the ACO's tax status, or corporate structure, such as based
on whether the ACO is for-profit, or not-for-profit, since ACOs must be
governed by their ACO participants (according to Sec. 425.106(c)(3))
and the ACO legal entity may have a different tax or corporate
structure than its ACO participants, and tax status or corporate
structure is not indicative of an organization's ability to take on
risk.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the proposed approach may not
take into account recent, major changes to the program's benchmarking
methodology that could drastically alter the current discrepancy in
performance between low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs. This
commenter suggested that CMS should not rush with multiple major
changes to the program simultaneously and should instead wait to see if
adjustments to benchmarking, risk adjustment, and other design elements
help to address other discrepancies, including the pattern of high
revenue ACOs not performing as well as low revenue ACOs.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that we delay
implementing the proposed changes to the program's design to allow for
additional experience with the program. We believe the proposed
changes, which were based on program results and our experience in
implementing program policies and the Track 1+ Model, are necessary to
drive Medicare FFS providers and suppliers towards a system of value-
based payment instead of volume-based payment and that these policies
work in combination to help transition health care providers more
quickly, but still incrementally, to value-based care. As we explained
in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41787), and have reiterated in
this final rule, while we understand that systems need time to adjust,
Medicare cannot afford to continue with models that are not producing
desired results. We also note that many ACOs currently participating in
Track 1 are near the end of their second agreement period and thus have
had 5 or 6 years of experience in the program entirely under the one-
sided model, and should be capable and ready to transition to
performance-based risk. Further, we do not have reason to believe that
the benchmarking changes that we are adopting in this final rule
(discussed in section II.D. of this final rule) would necessarily lead
to improved performance for high revenue ACOs versus low revenue ACOs,
and therefore we do not anticipate that these changes alone would
eliminate or reduce the differential performance patterns we have seen
in the past.
Comment: A few commenters suggested that CMS should create a level
competitive playing field and let those that perform best succeed most,
and find approaches that are not based on an ACO's composition to
eliminate poor performers. One commenter suggested that CMS ensure that
its methodology rewards ACOs that do a better job of controlling
spending instead of emphasizing revenue. Several commenters suggested
(as an alternative to distinguishing low revenue ACOs and high revenue
ACOs) that CMS improve the program's methodology to accurately reward
performance for improving quality and reducing costs, and offer
resources and assistance to all ACOs. One commenter stated that the
program should be about raising the bar for everyone and not
disadvantaging one provider group over another with respect to their
ACO participation.
One commenter recommended that CMS should focus on addressing a
smaller group of ACOs with poor performance rather than implementing
the broader proposed changes to differentiate participation options for
all ACOs. The commenter stated that in the performance year 2017
program data, eight ACOs with costs exceeding benchmarks by more than
$20 million were responsible for $251 million of the losses under the
Shared Savings Program. According to the commenter, 5 percent of Shared
Savings Program ACOs were responsible for 42 percent of the negative
impact on the program.
Response: We believe that the program's design already includes
significant financial incentives for ACOs, ACO participants, and ACO
providers/suppliers, to enter the program and continue their
participation in the program, as well as to meet the program's goals of
lowering growth in Medicare FFS expenditures and improving quality of
care for their assigned Medicare FFS beneficiaries so that ACOs may
share in savings with Medicare. We believe that the level of
participation and interest in the program are evidence of the value
healthcare providers see in forming ACOs and participating in the
Shared Savings Program.
Further, we disagree with commenters suggesting that participation
option requirements should be focused on select, poorly performing
ACOs, such as ACOs with proportionally large shared losses. We believe
such an option would be too narrow to adequately incentivize the
majority of ACOs, and we continue to believe that a broader redesign of
program participation options is warranted, and greater gains in
improving quality and reducing costs would be seen from our proposed
participation options, as opposed to maintaining the status quo or
creating policies targeted at only a few ACOs in the program. We also
believe these revised program policies should be applied program-wide,
to further drive improved performance for all participating ACOs. As
discussed in section II.A.5.d of this final rule, we are finalizing our
proposal to monitor ACO financial performance and to potentially
terminate ACOs demonstrating significant losses (negative outside
corridor) for two performance years. We believe that this policy will
identify ACOs that are repeatedly large outliers in terms of financial
losses, which may be unable to meet program goals and objectives.
Comment: Several commenters expressed that the proposed approach
overlooks the original intention of the Shared Savings Program to
foster collaboration between providers (specifically between physicians
and hospitals) and would prove detrimental to program goals. A few
commenters stated that healthcare transformation can only successfully
occur when there is coordination across the continuum of care.
Some commenters argued that the proposed approach would set up a
system that disadvantages hospital-based ACOs and could therefore limit
the types of innovations needed to build a high performing healthcare
system for the range of communities across the nation. These commenters
tended to suggest that the best way to drive high quality care for
patients is to create incentives that drive all the providers in a
system to collaborate, to innovate and deliver high quality, cost
effective healthcare.
[[Page 67871]]
One commenter, discussing the proposal to make the Shared Savings
Program more accessible to low revenue and inexperienced ACOs,
suggested that CMS consider policies that generate more accessible
opportunities for practices and organizations to begin moving along the
path to outcome-based payment. The commenter cautioned that a narrow
program that accelerates progress for some, but leaves many behind,
will not meet our national ambitions to transform to a high-value,
outcome-based healthcare delivery system.
One commenter explained that new incentives to work harder through
greater financial risk in two-sided risk models are also incentives to
leave the program and revert back to FFS payment, a consideration
echoed in other comments.
Response: We believe that the proposed approach to redesigning the
program's participation options, and the approach as finalized in this
final rule, will further the fulfillment of the program's goals of
improving quality of care and lowering growth in Medicare FFS
expenditures for beneficiaries. We believe that rapid transition to the
new participation options will drive more meaningful systematic change
in ACOs, which have the potential to control their assigned
beneficiaries' Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures by coordinating
care across care settings, and thus to achieve significant change in
spending. We also believe that these policies will promote free-market
principles which may lead to further innovation within markets and
potentially greater success in achieving the program's goals. The new
tools and flexibilities afforded to ACOs participating under
performance-based risk, such as the expanded ability of their
clinicians to furnish covered telehealth services under section 1899(l)
of the Act and to strengthen beneficiary engagement through new
beneficiary incentive programs, in conjunction with revised
benchmarking and risk adjustment policies, will enable these ACOs to be
successful.
We also note that based on our observations, successful ACOs
typically achieve lower growth in expenditures across all claim types,
and we believe this is a reflection of the collaborative relationships
that exist within ACOs (between ACO providers/suppliers), and
collaborations between ACOs and non-ACO providers and suppliers and
other entities. We believe that hospitals will remain essential ACO
participants in many cases, and non-ACO participant partners in others,
as they are key collaborators in meeting the program's goals of
lowering growth in Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures, and
improving the quality of care, for the ACO's assigned beneficiary
population.
The Shared Savings Program was established as, and remains, a
voluntary program for providers and suppliers to become accountable for
the quality and cost of care for an assigned population of Medicare FFS
beneficiaries. We have aligned incentives between the Shared Savings
Program and other CMS initiatives to provide beneficiaries value-based
care. For example, program participation has taken on greater
significance since the establishment of the Quality Payment Program.
Our continued alignment with the Quality Payment Program provides a low
burden way for clinicians to participate in both programs, including
allowing eligible clinicians in ACOs that are participating in a track
of the Shared Savings Program that is an Advanced Alternative Payment
Model (APM) to qualify for APM incentive payments. We acknowledge that
Medicare is only one payer, but effective collaborations between
providers and suppliers are necessary to provide high-quality, value-
based care across the healthcare system, and the APM track of the
Quality Payment Program will account for participation in both Advanced
APMs and in Other Payer Advanced APMs with payers other than Medicare
through the All-Payer Combination Option beginning in performance year
2019.
Comment: One commenter explained that the disproportionate emphasis
on ACOs reducing costs overshadows the equally important goal of
quality improvement, which benefits patients and the Medicare program
generally.
Response: In response to the concern that the proposed redesign of
the program is disproportionately focused on lowering growth in
expenditures, and not sufficiently focused on quality of care, we note
that improved quality of care for patients was one of the five
principles guiding our proposed redesign of the Shared Savings Program,
and we disagree with the commenters' assertion that this goal has been
overshadowed by a focus on lowering growth in expenditures. We also
note that we recently finalized policies in the November 2018 final
rule to make the quality measure set more outcome oriented, while also
reducing reporting burden on ACOs and their participating ACO
providers/suppliers.
Comment: One commenter pointed out the added complexity proposed
for determining participation options for ACOs under the program
redesign, with CMS evaluating whether ACOs are new, renewing or re-
entering, experienced or inexperienced with performance-based risk, and
high revenue or low revenue. The commenter suggested that eliminating
the high revenue ACO versus low revenue ACO distinction would help
minimize some of the complexity and would remove a significant amount
of work required by CMS and ACOs to model, predict, and determine if
the ACO would be a high revenue ACO or a low revenue ACO. Some
commenters opposed to the concept of distinguishing between ACOs
according to the proposed low revenue ACO and high revenue ACO
definitions viewed the distinction as confusing.
Response: We believe that ACOs should be able to surmise if they
are likely to be determined low revenue ACOs or high revenue ACOs,
based on their composition. ACOs with a large hospital or other
institutional provider will likely be determined to be high revenue
ACOs. We plan to provide feedback to ACOs during the application
process, and as part of program monitoring of low revenue ACOs
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives that
are in an agreement period under Level E of the BASIC track (discussed
elsewhere in this section of this final rule) regarding their status as
a low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO. More generally, we anticipate
providing information annually to ACOs within their agreement period,
particularly as part of the ACO participant list change request review
cycles, about their ACO participants' Medicare FFS revenue so they will
have information about the composition of their ACO and the Medicare
FFS revenue of their ACO participants to support their ongoing
participation in the program. As discussed in greater detail elsewhere
in this preamble, we believe that considering whether an ACO is a low
revenue ACO or high revenue ACO is an important and necessary policy
for determining ACO participation options within the program redesign.
Comment: A few commenters supported CMS' proposed definitions for
low revenue ACO and high revenue ACO. A few commenters indicated their
preference for the proposed use of Medicare claims data to make the low
revenue ACO versus high revenue ACO determination, rather than the
alternative sources of data discussed in the proposed rule. For
instance, one commenter explained that a claims-based approach would
provide a more accurate method for determining an ACO's preparedness to
take on additional risk rather than an ACO's self-reported information
regarding the
[[Page 67872]]
composition of its ACO participants and any ownership and operational
interests in those ACO participants. Another commenter shared CMS'
belief that a revenue-based approach would be a more accurate means to
measure the degree of control that ACOs have over total Medicare Parts
A and B FFS expenditures for their assigned beneficiaries compared to
approaches that consider the size of the ACO's assigned population or
the inclusion of a hospital or cancer center in the ACO.
However, other commenters suggested a variety of alternatives. Some
commenters suggested alternative approaches to identifying low revenue
ACOs and high revenue ACOs using alternative sources of data instead of
or in addition to ACO participant Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue.
More generally, some commenters believe the proposed approach could
result in ACOs gaming the revenue determinations by manipulating their
ACO participant lists. For instance, a high revenue ACO could be
encouraged to selectively redefine its component TINs to meet the
definition of a low revenue ACO, such as by restructuring to exclude
acute care facilities. Other commenters suggested low revenue, or
physician-led ACOs may avoid including these facilities as ACO
participants. Several commenters indicated that use of FFS revenue as a
proxy for composition could lead to ACOs appearing to be low revenue
when in fact they have hospitals or health systems in their ownership
and operational chain, and suggested CMS use other data to make these
determinations. One commenter explained that the proposed approach
could lead an ACO to split its network of physicians, which it
considers a suboptimal outcome and counter to the organization's long-
standing collaborative approach. This commenter also noted that there
are non-trivial costs to setting up a new physician network and ACO
entity.
A few commenters suggested that CMS apply the Track 1+ Model policy
requiring ACO attestation regarding the ownership interests of and in
its ACO participants in determining participation options under the
Shared Savings Program. One commenter preferred the Track 1+ Model
approach to the proposed distinction between low revenue ACOs and high
revenue ACOs. Another commenter suggested we apply the Track 1+ Model
approach in addition to the proposed approach to determining low
revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs. However, several commenters
preferred CMS forgo self-reporting requirements as exist, for example,
under the Track 1+ Model.
One commenter suggested that CMS use additional data on full
organizational structure (such as such as IRS filings and PECOS data)
to determine organization-wide revenue for physician groups responsible
for the bulk of the ACO's assigned population. Under this alternative,
the commenter suggested that CMS consider ACOs with physician groups
that are part of a large health system, or large physician groups with
market power (such as those that are very specialty-heavy or have
substantial market share) to be high revenue ACOs. This commenter also
expressed concern that the proposed approach to determining low revenue
ACOs and high revenue ACOs could discourage partnerships between
physician groups and hospitals through means other than mergers and
acquisitions. To address this circumstance, the commenter suggested
that ACOs should be regarded as low revenue if their ACO participant
lists include independent physician groups and hospitals, to avoid
disrupting these partnerships. This commenter argued that under this
alternative approach, consolidation in provider markets would be
discouraged because it would lead to more downside risk in available
Shared Savings Program participation options, while partnerships or
preferred networks that can support competition and do not cause
commercial mark-ups would not be discouraged.
However, somewhat contrary to this suggestion, a few commenters
explained their belief that it is valuable for physician-led ACOs to be
able to recruit and include specialty physicians to further redesign
health care delivery. According to these commenters, simply because a
physician-led ACO contracts with specialty practices does not ensure
the ACO is more capable of taking on ENHANCED track level of risk.
One commenter seemed to suggest we go further than the Track 1+
Model approach, which requires ACOs to report to CMS certain ownership
and operational interests in ACO participants, by counting revenue
received by entities that have ownership and operational interests in
ACO participants and not just revenue received by providers and
suppliers that bill through the TINs included on the ACO's participant
list. This commenter explained that failing to count revenue earned by
entities with an ownership or operational relationship to ACO
participants would allow many ACOs that are affiliated with a hospital
to access participation options that are intended for physician-only
ACOs through manipulation of their ACO participant list. However,
seemingly contrary to this suggestion, another commenter explained that
some ACOs have shareholders that are large hospital systems but own
only a small portion of the ACO and do not provide a substantial amount
of funding to the ACO. This commenter (an ACO), explained that it would
have to close its doors if all income for the other entities with
ownership interests in ACO participants (such as a large hospital
system) was considered when setting the ACO's amount of loss liability.
Several commenters suggested that we consider ACO participant
composition in making the low revenue ACO versus high revenue ACO
determination. One commenter suggested that CMS identify ACOs that
include hospitals as ACO participants, and designate those ACOs as
``high revenue''. Some commenters suggested that rural ACOs be
considered low revenue ACOs. In particular, some commenters suggested
rural ACOs that meet ACO Investment Model (AIM) eligibility criteria
should be considered low revenue ACOs.
One commenter recommended that CMS consider more than two revenue
definitions or categories, suggesting that the proposed distinction may
be too stark. The commenter suggested that CMS use multiple criteria,
such as using self-reported composition, ACO composition as determined
by CMS according to the alternative approach considered for
distinguishing hospital-based and physician-led ACOs, and size of an
ACO's assigned beneficiary population, in differentiating low revenue
ACOs and high revenue ACOs.
A few commenters stated that CMS is unable to truly identify
whether an ACO is well capitalized and should not create distinctions
based on assumptions about capital, indicating that CMS is unable to
identify if an ACO is well capitalized through sources outside of
Medicare revenue (such as insurer- or investor-backed ACOs). A few
commenters explained, for example, the proposed approach would not
capture private investments in ACOs, noting that insurers and venture
capital funds have invested heavily in some ACOs, often physician-led
ACOs.
One commenter encouraged CMS to leverage public use data to
calculate an ACO's revenue in an effort to make the ACO's revenue
determination transparent, citing as an example the ``Medicare Provider
Utilization and Payment'' data available through https://data.cms.gov.
Response: We appreciate the support of some commenters for CMS'
proposed definitions for low revenue ACO and
[[Page 67873]]
high revenue ACO, and commenters' careful consideration of the options
we considered, as well as their alternative suggestions.
We note that commenters offered opposing positions on some of the
suggested alternative approaches. For instance, comments reflect
differing views on the approach used under the Track 1+ Model to
determine whether ACOs are under a revenue-based or benchmark-based
loss sharing limit, with some supporting and others opposing the Track
1+ Model approach. One commenter seemed to mistakenly believe that
under the Track 1+ Model, we consider the revenue earned by health care
providers with an ownership or operational interest in an ACO
participant. However, to clarify, under the design of the Track 1+
Model, ACOs are required to collect, assess, and report to CMS
information on the ownership and operational interests of their ACO
participants, which in turn is used to determine the ACO's
participation options under the Track 1+ Model. As we described in the
August 2018 proposed rule, we believe this approach adds complexity for
ACOs and is also more complex for CMS to validate and audit. As a
result, we explained that the use of ACOs' self-reported information in
the permanent program could become burdensome for CMS to validate and
monitor to ensure program integrity (83 FR 41807). Therefore, we agree
with commenters that we should forgo use of similar self-reporting
requirements in determining low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs
under the Shared Savings Program.
We continue to believe, based on our experience with the Track 1+
Model, that ACO participants' Medicare Part A and B FFS revenue serves
as an effective and accurate proxy for self-reported composition. Based
on our experience with the initial application cycle for the Track 1+
Model, we believe a simpler approach that achieves similar results to
the use of self-reported information would be to consider the total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of ACO participants (TINs and CCNs)
based on claims data, without directly considering their ownership and
operational interests (or those of related entities). We believe that
the use of Medicare Parts A and B FFS claims data for ACO participants
provides an accurate estimate of their Medicare revenue and potential
ability to cover losses that are proportional to their Medicare
revenue. It also avoids additional burden for ACOs to collect and
submit revenue data to CMS and for CMS to establish additional
collection and validation processes.
Further, we continue to believe that ACOs whose ACO participants
have greater total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue relative to the
ACO's benchmark are better financially prepared to move to greater
levels of risk (83 FR 41807). Accordingly, this comparison of revenue
to benchmark would provide a more accurate method for determining an
ACO's preparedness to take on additional risk than an ACO's self-
reported information regarding the composition of its ACO participants
and any ownership and operational interests in those ACO participants.
Commenters also offered differing perspectives on use of ACO
participant composition to determine ACO participation options.
However, as we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule, we continue
to believe that a claims-based approach to determining low revenue ACOs
and high revenue ACOs would better align with the claims-based
approaches to determining loss sharing limits (discussed in section
II.A.3 of this final rule) and the repayment mechanism estimate amounts
for ACOs (as discussed in section II.A.6 of this final rule) providing
more consistent feedback and program transparency and reducing
complexity from multiple but slightly different calculations.
We also decline to adopt commenters' alternative suggestions to use
multiple sources of data to determine participation options, which
could add further complexity to our approach. Some comments indicated
concerns that under the proposed approach CMS would not be able to
effectively identify well capitalized ACOs. However, we believe that
ACO participant revenue coupled with establishing a repayment mechanism
to cover potential losses provide sufficient assurances and proxies for
demonstrating capitalization and ability to invest in care coordination
and cover potential losses. We believe it would place additional burden
on ACOs and add complexity to the approach to consider how well
capitalized ACOs are through their composition or private investments,
for example. We have not routinely required that ACOs disclose
statements about their financial status, or the financial status of
their ACO participants or ACO providers/suppliers, in determining their
eligibility to enter or continue their participation in the program, or
a particular participation option in the program.
Further, with respect to the comment suggesting that we base
participation options on ACO organizational formations or provider/
supplier relationships that the commenter considered beneficial to
health care markets, we believe our approach to defining low revenue
ACOs and high revenue ACOs, and to determining participation options
based on the distinction between these two categories of ACOs, promotes
innovative arrangements between physicians and hospitals while
providing an alternative for physicians to stay independent and work
collaboratively with other providers and suppliers.
We also decline to use the publicly available sources of revenue
data described by one commenter. We believe use of existing sources of
program data for the revenue calculations will allow for greater
consistency across the program's calculations, and timely feedback to
ACOs, including through information shared during the application cycle
and through program reports.
Lastly, we appreciate commenters' concerns about the possibility
that existing ACOs may bifurcate their ACO participant lists to form
new ACOs that may satisfy the definition of a low revenue ACO and
therefore be eligible to participate under potentially lower levels of
performance-based risk. We note that ACOs are accountable for total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for their assigned
beneficiaries. To the extent that ACOs modify their ACO participant
lists to remove higher-revenue providers and suppliers, such as
institutional providers, the ACO remains accountable for the total cost
of care received by its assigned beneficiaries, including services
received from non-ACO providers and suppliers. The requirement that
ACOs agree to be accountable for the quality and cost of all care
furnished to their assigned beneficiaries, including services furnished
by providers and suppliers that are not participating in the ACO,
reduces our concern about ACOs manipulating their ACO participant lists
to take advantage of potentially lower-risk participation options.
As one commenter points out, there could be costs associated with
setting up a new legal entity and new Medicare-enrolled TINs, and this
could be a deterrent to engaging in these practices to avoid the
intended applicability of program requirements. We also believe several
other policies we are finalizing in this final rule will help protect
against ACOs gaming determinations for program participation options
through modifications to their ACO participant
[[Page 67874]]
lists, specifically: (1) The approach we are finalizing to monitor for
changes in revenue that cause ACOs identified as low revenue, and
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives to
become considered high revenue and therefore no longer be eligible for
participation in the BASIC track, as described elsewhere in this
section of this final rule; and (2) the approach we are finalizing to
identify re-entering ACOs, based on the prior participation of their
ACO participants, as described in section II.A.5.c. of this final rule,
will help ensure that ACOs are held accountable for their ACO
participants' prior program experience.
Comment: One commenter suggested that CMS should provide ACOs with
the ability to select only the highest performing providers and
suppliers by allowing ACOs to select their participants by NPI rather
than solely at the TIN level. The commenter explained that this
approach could help enable ACOs to have greater control over managing
costs for their assigned beneficiaries. According to this commenter,
under this approach to allowing participation by individual NPIs,
rather than the all NPIs that reassigned their billings rights to the
ACO participant TIN (as currently required), ACOs would have the
flexibility to build a high performing network of providers who will
deliver the most efficient and highest quality care. In turn, the
commenter stated that these high performing networks would incentivize
providers that want to join or remain in an ACO to focus more on
reducing unnecessary costs and maintaining high quality, and
incentivize ACOs to more closely evaluate providers in their network
based on sophisticated data analytics.
Response: In the August 2018 proposed rule, we did not contemplate
changes to the current definition of ``ACO participant'' under Sec.
425.20 which means an entity identified by a Medicare-enrolled billing
TIN through which one or more ACO providers/suppliers bill Medicare,
that alone or together with one or more other ACO participants compose
an ACO, and that is included on the list of ACO participants that is
required under Sec. 425.118. We also did not contemplate changes to
the underlying methodology used to assign beneficiaries to ACOs based
on ACO participant TINs.
We continue to believe that ACOs have the potential to transform
the quality and cost of care more broadly for the Medicare FFS
beneficiaries who receive care from ACO participants. We believe that
defining ACO participants to include all NPIs that have reassigned
their billing rights to the TIN is a means to allowing the ACO's
redesigned care processes to more broadly reach all Medicare FFS
beneficiaries that may receive care from ACO participants, including
those that may not meet the program's assignment criteria, and provides
incentives for lower performing providers within an ACO participant TIN
to improve. We also have concerns about ACOs selecting only the highest
performing providers within a practice to be part of the ACO while less
efficient and effective providers are not part of the ACO, because this
structure could have negative implications for patients seen by the ACO
participant and for the Medicare Trust Funds. Moreover, an approach
allowing for participation by individual NPIs, rather than all NPIs
that reassigned their billings rights to ACO participant TINs, could
further opportunities for ACOs to game participation determinations by
including only the most efficient and effective clinicians in the ACO,
while less efficient and effective clinicians are excluded from the
ACO. Therefore, we believe that maintaining the definition of ACO
participant at the TIN level continues to be an effective approach in
achieving the program's goals of improved care, and reduced
expenditures, for Medicare FFS beneficiaries more broadly.
Comment: Some commenters addressed the threshold percentage to
differentiate low revenue ACO and high revenue ACO, proposed at 25
percent. Commenters offered a variety of alternative suggestions for
the threshold percentage.
A few commenters argued that the proposed 25 percent threshold, and
the alternative consideration for a 30 percent threshold, would
incorrectly deem moderate revenue ACOs, especially rural ACOs or urban
ACOs that serve surrounding rural areas, to be high revenue ACOs. These
commenters suggested that CMS either exempt rural ACOs from the revenue
designation or raise the threshold for determining low revenue ACOs
such as to 60 percent.
One commenter explained their belief that rural and small providers
do not fit squarely within the low revenue ACO category. The commenter
asserted that a revenue[hyphen]based distinction could ultimately lead
to rural providers, small providers, and many ACOs with mixed FFS and
cost[hyphen]based revenue (including both urban and rural provider/
suppliers) being categorized as high revenue ACOs contrary to the
intended purpose of the policy.
Another commenter questioned how a rural ACO with 25 small rural
hospitals would be classified under this approach, but did not offer
details that would inform how this composition might affect ACO
participants' Medicare FFS Parts A and B revenue, or total Medicare
Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries.
One commenter recommended that CMS begin with a 30 percent
threshold to account for ACOs with physician groups with a
comparatively larger number of specialists as ACO participants, in
addition to considering other metrics in distinguishing low revenue
ACOs and high revenue ACOs, and/or develop more granular methods than
the two proposed revenue-based categories to ascertain ACO risk
tolerance. Another commenter generally urged CMS to establish pathways
for specialists to meaningfully engage in the Shared Savings Program.
One commenter recommended that CMS increase the threshold of ACO
participant revenue as a percentage of benchmark from 25 percent to 40
percent or greater for this and any future standards in which CMS seeks
to distinguish small and large health systems.
One commenter disagreed that the proposed 25 percent threshold
corresponds to the ACO's ability to control costs, since it does not
account for a number of factors beyond the control of ACOs that could
artificially inflate this number. This concern was reflected in other
comments. For example, a few commenters expressed concern generally
over the ability of ACOs to control costs and provide value in the
Medicare FFS environment, pointing to factors including beneficiaries'
freedom of choice of providers under FFS Medicare, and the absence of
protection from the cost of Part B drugs and/or new technologies, and
CAH costs as examples.
One commenter suggested CMS use a lower threshold, as a means to
deter gaming, such as 15 percent. This commenter pointed to the use of
a 10 percent threshold approach as described in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41917).
Response: We agree with commenters' concerns that ACOs that include
small, rural hospitals may not be identified as low revenue ACOs under
the proposed 25 percent threshold, and we agree with commenters
suggesting that the threshold be raised to allow additional ACOs with
small hospitals and clinics, including small rural hospitals, as ACO
participants to qualify as low revenue ACOs. Therefore, to help ensure
more ACOs under these circumstances may
[[Page 67875]]
be considered low revenue ACOs, we believe it would be appropriate to
increase the threshold used in determining low revenue ACOs and high
revenue ACOs to 35 percent. ACOs with small hospitals as ACO
participants, including small rural hospitals, may not control a large
enough portion of assigned beneficiary expenditures or be financially
prepared to take on greater risk. Increasing the threshold used to
determine low revenue ACOs versus high revenue ACOs would provide these
ACOs with the opportunity to remain under the BASIC track at lower
levels of performance-based risk, for a longer period of time. This
would allow such ACOs to gain experience in a lower level of risk in
the program before being required to move to the ENHANCED track.
Based on modeling using the most recently available expenditure and
revenue data and ACO assignment data, we are increasing the threshold
from 25 percent to 35 percent. Modeling shows increasing the threshold
would allow more ACOs with small hospitals as ACO participants,
including small rural hospitals, to be considered low revenue ACOs,
while continuing to ensure that ACOs with large institutional providers
are considered high revenue ACOs. The increased threshold would
increase the number of low revenue ACOs by 31 ACOs, a 13 percent
increase from the number of ACOs that would be included in the 25
percent threshold, based on our modeling with data used for performance
year 2018. A 35 percent threshold balances concerns by recognizing
additional ACOs with small institutional providers or clinics as low
revenue ACOs, while helping to ensure ACOs with higher revenue continue
to have the strongest incentives to improve quality of care for
Medicare FFS beneficiaries and reduce expenditure growth to protect the
Trust Funds.
We decline the commenter's suggestion to use a much lower threshold
in identifying low revenue ACOs, such as 15 percent. The commenter
pointed to the use of a 10 percent threshold in distinguishing low
revenue ACOs from high revenue ACOs in the August 2018 proposed rule's
Regulatory Impact Analysis. As we explained in the August 2018 proposed
rule (83 FR 41814) and reiterated in this section of this final rule,
under this analysis, an ACO was identified as low revenue if its ACO
participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue for assigned
beneficiaries was less than 10 percent of the ACO's assigned
beneficiary population's total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures.
We continue to have concerns that this approach does not sufficiently
account for ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue
(as opposed to their revenue for assigned beneficiaries), and therefore
could misrepresent the ACO's overall risk bearing potential, which
would diverge from other aspects of the design of the BASIC track as
finalized (see section II.A.3 of this final rule).
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the approach to
calculating revenue used in the definitions of low revenue ACOs and
high revenue ACOs. These commenters explain that CMS proposes to
include hospital add-on payments such as Indirect Medical Education
(IME), Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH), and uncompensated care
payments when calculating an ACO's revenue. These commenters point out
that CMS will exclude these payments when calculating assigned
beneficiary expenditures for determining benchmark and performance year
expenditures. These commenters urged CMS to exclude add-on payments in
determining an ACO's revenue, suggesting that this approach could
penalize ACOs that treat vulnerable populations, including teaching
hospitals or those that treat the uninsured population.
One commenter requested that CMS modify the proposed approach to
identifying high revenue ACOs to ensure ACOs that are appropriately
engaging, and incentivizing hospital engagement, in value-based care
delivery are not penalized for their success.
Response: We discuss related considerations in our discussion of
the calculation of ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue for determining the loss sharing limits under the BASIC track
in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41809 through 41810) and in
section II.A.3 of this final rule. To accurately determine ACO
participants' revenue for purposes of determining a revenue-based loss
sharing limit, we explain our belief that it is important to include
total revenue uncapped by truncation and to include IME, DSH and
uncompensated care payments. We noted that this approach to calculating
ACO participant Medicare FFS revenue is different from our approach to
calculating benchmark and performance year expenditures for assigned
beneficiaries, which we truncate at the 99th percentile of national
Medicare FFS expenditures for assignable beneficiaries, and from which
we exclude IME, DSH and uncompensated care payments (see subpart G of
the program's regulations). We explained that IME, DSH, uncompensated
care payments represent resources available to ACO participants to
support their operations and offset their costs and potential shared
losses, thereby increasing the ACO's capacity to bear performance-based
risk, which we believe should be reflected in the ACO's loss sharing
limit. Excluding such payments could undercount revenue and also could
be challenging to implement, particularly truncation, since it likely
would require apportioning responsibility for large claims among the
ACO participants and non-ACO participants from which the beneficiary
may have received the services resulting in the large claims. We
therefore decline to modify our approach to determining ACO
participant's total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue to include IME,
DSH and uncompensated care payments, or to cap claim payment amounts
through truncation.
For similar reasons, we also decline at this time to make other
technical adjustments to calculations of revenue to exclude any other
payment adjustments reflected in the claim payment amounts, such as
payments under MIPS or the Hospital Value Based Purchasing Program.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that CMS should take into
consideration the impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances
when determining participation options based on Medicare FFS revenue.
Response: At this time, we decline to modify our approach to
determining ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue,
and will not exclude Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue earned during a
disaster period, nor will we make other adjustments to the calculation
of ACO participants' Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue to address
extreme and uncontrollable circumstances because we do not have a
reliable means for estimating what the ACO participants' Medicare Parts
A and B FFS revenues would have been in the absence of the event.
We will continue to monitor the impact of extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances on ACOs, particularly as we gain
experience with the disaster-relief policies we have finalized for
performance year 2017 and subsequent performance years. As part of this
monitoring, we will consider whether any changes to our policy for
determining low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs may be necessary to
account for the effects of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances.
Any such
[[Page 67876]]
changes would be made through notice and comment rulemaking.
Comment: A few commenters explained that rural hospitals and
physician practices have demonstrably smaller net operating profit
margins than urban hospitals, and commenters suggested that the
proposed approach to differentiating participation options based on ACO
participants' Medicare FFS revenue should consider ACO participants'
fixed costs and operating margins.
Response: We currently do not consider operating costs in program
calculations for benchmark and performance year expenditures since we
determine benchmark and performance year expenditures based on Medicare
Parts A and B FFS expenditures, according to the statutory requirements
for the Shared Savings Program under section 1899(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
We decline to consider operating costs in determining whether an ACO
qualifies as a low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO. We believe that
doing so would add a degree of variability and also unpredictably to
the revenue calculations. We also believe it would be burdensome for
ACOs to track operating costs of individual ACO participants, report
this information to CMS, and for CMS to validate the data for use in
calculations.
Comment: One commenter requested that CMS provide clarification
around the data that will be used for the ACO participant revenue
calculations. The commenter noted that the proposed rule states that
the most recently available 12 months of data will be used, but it is
unclear what time period that would be. This commenter also responded
to the discussion in the proposed rule on CMS' consideration of an
alternative approach where we would use multiple years of data to make
the determination of whether an ACO is a low revenue ACO or high
revenue ACO. This commenter preferred the proposed approach, to have
the calculations based on one year of data, and did not consider use of
multiple years of data in the revenue determination to be beneficial.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's support for the proposed
look back period in the definition of low revenue ACO and high revenue
ACO. To clarify, we proposed that we would make the determination based
on ACO participant Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue and total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the most recent calendar
year for which 12 months of data are available. As an example, the
annual application cycle for a January 1st agreement period start date
typically spans the Summer-Fall of the prior calendar year. For
example, for ACOs applying for the agreement start date of January 1,
2020, we would anticipate the application cycle to occur during CY
2019. Therefore, we would make the low revenue ACO versus high revenue
ACO determination for ACOs applying for a new agreement period
beginning January 1, 2020 based on the 12 months of data from January
1, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
We also proposed that for ACOs applying for an agreement start date
of July 1, 2019, we would determine whether the ACO is a low revenue
ACO or high revenue ACO using data from the most recent calendar year
for which 12 months of data are available. We anticipate the
application cycle for the July 1, 2019 agreement start date to occur in
Winter-Spring of 2019. Therefore, for ACOs applying for the agreement
start date of July 1, 2019, we would make the low revenue ACO and high
revenue ACO determination based on the 12 months of data from January
1, 2018, through December 31, 2018.
Comment: Several commenters addressed CMS' proposal to monitor low
revenue ACOs experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives participating in the BASIC track to determine if they
continue to meet the definition of low revenue ACO, and to take
compliance action if the ACO meets the definition of a high revenue ACO
during the agreement period. Under the proposed approach, high revenue
ACOs experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives
would be restricted to participation under the ENHANCED track.
One commenter expressed significant reservations about the proposal
to annually monitor low revenue ACOs to determine if, during the course
of the performance year, the ACO became a high revenue ACO, and in turn
requiring an ACO that becomes high revenue to move to the ENHANCED
track. The commenter encouraged CMS not to finalize this approach as
proposed. This commenter stated that many low revenue ACOs may be
looking to partner with high revenue entities, such as IPPS hospitals,
in order to have greater control over total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
expenditures for their assigned beneficiaries. The commenter disagreed
that this partnership automatically makes the low revenue ACO's
experience commensurate to that of a high revenue ACO, experienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives. The commenter
explained that entities with significant Medicare FFS revenues that are
inexperienced with Medicare performance-based risk ACO initiatives may
seek out experienced, low revenue ACOs to join as an ACO participant,
to capitalize upon the ACO entity's experience with success in
performance-based risk. The commenter argued that an experienced, low
revenue ACO with a newly added, inexperienced ACO participant, is not
equivalent to a high revenue ACO that is experienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, even if the addition of the ACO
participant causes the ACO to meet the proposed definition of a high
revenue ACO, and therefore should not be aggressively accelerated to
program's maximum downside risk under the ENHANCED track. Instead, the
commenter encouraged CMS to allow these ACOs to continue their BASIC
track participation until the end of their participation agreement.
One commenter described that CMS would have to consistently monitor
to ensure ACO participant changes did not alter an ACO's status as a
low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO and for those that did, CMS would
have to issue correction notices and require corrective action plans.
The commenter described this as operationally difficult and creating
more unnecessary complication and burden on both ACOs and CMS.
A few commenters explained that an ACO's qualification as a low
revenue ACO or high revenue ACO would also change over time as ACO
participant composition changes, adding more complexity and making
long-term planning very difficult. These commenters were concerned that
uncertainty would be further compounded by the timing of our
determination of whether ACOs qualify as a low revenue ACO or high
revenue ACO.
Response: We considered commenters' suggestions that we not require
ACOs that transition from low revenue ACO to high revenue ACO status
during the course of an ACO's agreement period in Level E of the BASIC
track to transition to the ENHANCED track. We also considered
commenters' concerns (described elsewhere in this section of this final
rule) that the proposed approach to distinguishing participation
options for low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs could result in ACOs
gaming the revenue determinations by manipulating their ACO participant
lists. We remain concerned about the possibility that an ACO identified
as experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives,
and participating in an agreement period
[[Page 67877]]
under Level E of the BASIC track because it is also determined to be a
low revenue ACO at the start of its agreement period, could become a
high revenue ACO during the course of its agreement period. We believe
that absent a structured approach to monitoring and addressing changes
in composition, ACOs entering the BASIC track initially appearing to be
low revenue ACOs could dramatically change their composition to take
advantage of this lower-risk participation option in a manner that the
program redesign does not contemplate.
At this time, we believe it would be appropriate to finalize the
proposal to monitor for revenue changes in ACOs that entered an
agreement period under Level E of the BASIC track because they are low
revenue and experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives, for example as a result of changes in ACO participant
composition. Further, under this approach, such an ACO that becomes
high revenue during its agreement period under Level E of the BASIC
track would be required to take corrective action to remedy the issue,
such as removing an ACO participant from its ACO participant list, so
that the ACO could meet the definition of low revenue ACO. If
corrective action is not taken, CMS would terminate the ACO's
participation agreement under Sec. 425.218.
If an ACO is required to terminate its participation, it may apply
to enter a new agreement period under the ENHANCED track. As a
consequence of entering a new agreement period, the ACO's benchmark
will be calculated based on the 3 most recent years prior to the ACO's
agreement start date, using the ACO participant list the ACO finalizes
as being applicable for the new agreement period.
We note that ACOs participating in the program may submit change
requests in accordance with program procedures to indicate additions,
updates, and deletions to their existing ACO participant lists. As part
of the ACO participant change request process, we anticipate providing
ACOs with information so that they are informed about the potential
impact of ACO participant list changes on their compliance with program
requirements, including how these changes may affect whether the ACO is
considered a low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO, under the criteria
for determining ACO participation options we are establishing with this
final rule.
Although we are finalizing the proposal, we do find the commenters'
concerns about the possible effects of applying this policy to be
compelling. In particular, after further consideration, we believe that
the low revenue ACO/high revenue ACO determination could be affected by
changes in the ACO participant list for the ACO, or changes in ACO
providers/suppliers, that are made in the course of program
participation, where the changes are not motivated by the ACO's desire
to avoid program requirements regarding participation options. For
example, any addition or removal of an ACO participant, or change in
ACO providers/suppliers, could affect the basis for the low revenue
ACO/high revenue ACO determination: ACO participants' total Medicare
Parts A and B FFS revenue, and total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries for the relevant
period. In particular, ACOs close to the threshold percentage that are
initially identified as low revenue ACOs could, during the course of
their agreement period, become high revenue ACOs due to only a slight
increase in ACO participant revenue. We note that under our proposed
approach, which we are finalizing, we may be required to terminate ACOs
from an agreement period in the BASIC track because of changes in ACO
participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue, and/or total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries, that result in small percentage changes that put the ACO
over the threshold for the definition of high revenue ACO, and which
could not be easily remedied by the ACO.
Therefore, we plan to closely monitor the effects of this policy.
In particular we plan to monitor the magnitude by which ACOs exceed the
35 percent threshold to become a high revenue ACO during an agreement
period, and the ease or difficulty with which ACOs can remedy these
circumstances to return to being low revenue ACOs (if desired by the
ACO). If this policy results in ACOs being required to transition to
the ENHANCED track, we will monitor to determine if these ACOs elect to
renew early (to avoid a break in program participation), or terminate
their participation, and if so whether they apply to re-enter the
program later. We may revisit this policy in future rulemaking based on
our lessons learned.
Comment: A few commenters indicated that ACOs may be challenged to
anticipate CMS' determination of whether they are low revenue ACOs or
high revenue ACOs, and will depend on these determinations to make
business decisions on program participation. One commenter explained
that ACOs may not have the data necessary to determine whether they are
low revenue ACOs or high revenue ACOs without receiving additional data
from CMS. A few commenters pointed to the need for CMS to provide
revenue determinations early in the application process, so that ACOs
know in advance what category they fall into. Several commenters
suggested that CMS provide ample time for ACOs to make participation
decisions based on its determination of whether an ACO is a low revenue
ACO or high revenue ACO, including to allow ACOs to make any changes
and execute a coordinated transition into their desired participation
option (if a choice is available).
A few commenters suggested that CMS provide more detailed processes
and timelines governing its assessment of and determination of ACOs as
low revenue ACOs or high revenue ACOs (including how it will monitor
ACOs) which it believes will help to protect against the potential for
ACO gaming whereby ACOs use creative business organization strategies
to ensure that they are able to remain in the low revenue ACO
designation. A few commenters urged that CMS keep the process simple,
straightforward, and transparent. One commenter suggested that CMS
announce to ACOs a date by which it will complete its assessment of all
ACOs regarding their categorization as a low revenue ACO or high
revenue ACO. One commenter suggested the following approach for a
typical application cycle, in advance of a January 1 start date: CMS
should provide an option for an ACO to file a request by May for a
determination of low revenue ACO/high revenue ACO status with receipt
of the determination no later than June. Thus, when the ACO files its
application in July, the ACO will be fully aware of its status and to
be ready to meet the necessary requirements.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' concern and we anticipate
providing timely feedback to ACOs throughout program application
cycles, on whether the ACO is likely to be determined to be a low
revenue ACO or high revenue ACO (among other factors), in order to
ensure ACOs have the information they need to make decisions about
program participation and to take action to align with program
requirements. We announce application cycle dates in advance, through
the Shared Savings Program website, and through various other methods
available, including webinars, FAQs and a weekly newsletter. The
program's application cycle typically includes
[[Page 67878]]
multiple opportunities for CMS to review the ACO's application, and
provide the applicant feedback and the opportunity to correct
deficiencies. We encourage ACOs and the public to monitor the Shared
Savings Program website for related announcements.
We decline commenter's suggestions to make final determination of
whether an ACO is a low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO in advance of
the application submission date. ACOs submit their ACO participant list
as part of the application submission process, and have opportunities
to make changes or corrections to their ACO participant list during the
application review period. As a result, the determination of whether an
ACO is a low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO could change.
Final Action: After consideration of the public comments received,
we are finalizing, with modifications, the proposed approach to
identifying low revenue ACOs and high revenues ACOs for the purposes of
determining ACO participation options in the Shared Savings Program. We
are finalizing the addition of new definitions at Sec. 425.20 for
``low revenue ACO,'' and ``high revenue ACO.''
We define ``high revenue ACO'' to mean an ACO whose total Medicare
Parts A and B FFS revenue of its ACO participants based on revenue for
the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of data are
available, is at least 35 percent of the total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries based on
expenditures for the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of
data are available.
We define ``low revenue ACO'' to mean an ACO whose total Medicare
Parts A and B FFS revenue of its ACO participants based on revenue for
the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of data are
available, is less than 35 percent of the total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries based on
expenditures for the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of
data are available.
In Sec. 425.600(e) we are finalizing our approach to ensuring
continued compliance of ACOs with the eligibility requirements for
participation in the BASIC track, for an ACO that is accepted into the
BASIC track's Level E because the ACO was experienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives and determined to be low revenue at
the time of application. If, during the agreement period, the ACO meets
the definition of a high revenue ACO, the ACO will be permitted to
complete the remainder of its current performance year under the BASIC
track, but will be ineligible to continue participation in the BASIC
track after the end of that performance year unless it takes corrective
action, for example by changing its ACO participant list. We will take
compliance action, up to and including termination of the participation
agreement, as specified in Sec. Sec. 425.216 and 425.218, to ensure
the ACO does not continue in the BASIC track for subsequent performance
years of the agreement period. For example, we may take pre-termination
actions as specified in Sec. 425.216, such as issuing a warning notice
or requesting a corrective action plan. To remain in the BASIC track,
the ACO will be required to remedy the issue. For example, if the ACO
participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue has increased in
relation to total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's
assigned beneficiaries, the ACO could remove an ACO participant from
its ACO participant list, so that the ACO can meet the definition of
low revenue ACO. If corrective action is not taken, CMS will terminate
the ACO's participation under Sec. 425.218.
(2) Restricting ACOs' Participation in the BASIC Track Prior To
Transitioning to Participation in the ENHANCED Track
As discussed in section II.A.5.c. of the August 2018 proposed rule
(83 FR 41820 through 41836), we proposed to use factors based on ACOs'
experience with performance-based risk to determine their eligibility
for the BASIC track's glide path, or to limit their participation
options to either the highest level of risk and potential reward under
the BASIC track (Level E) or the ENHANCED track. As discussed in
section II.A.5.b.(2) of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41817
through 41819), we also proposed to differentiate between low revenue
ACOs and high revenue ACOs with respect to the continued availability
of the BASIC track as a participation option. This approach would allow
low revenue ACOs, new to performance-based risk arrangements,
additional time under the BASIC track's revenue-based loss sharing
limits, while requiring high revenue ACOs to more rapidly transition to
the ENHANCED track under which they would assume relatively higher,
benchmark-based risk. We explained our belief that all ACOs should
ultimately transition to the ENHANCED track, the highest level of risk
and potential reward under the program, which could drive ACOs to more
aggressively pursue the program's goals of improving quality of care
and lowering growth in FFS expenditures for their assigned beneficiary
populations.
We considered that some low revenue ACOs may need additional time
to prepare to take on the higher levels of performance-based risk
required under the ENHANCED track. Low revenue ACOs, which could
include small, physician-only and rural ACOs, may be encouraged to
enter and remain in the program based on the availability of lower-risk
options. For example, small, physician-only and rural ACOs may have
limited experience submitting quality measures or managing patient care
under two-sided risk arrangements, which could deter their
participation in higher-risk options. ACOs and other program
stakeholders have suggested that the relatively lower levels of risk
available under the Track 1+ Model (an equivalent level of risk and
potential reward to the payment model available under Level E of the
BASIC track) encourages transition to risk by providing a more
manageable level of two-sided risk for small, physician-only, and rural
ACOs, compared to the levels of risk and potential reward currently
available under Track 2 and Track 3, and that would be offered under
the proposed ENHANCED track.
We also considered that, without limiting high revenue ACOs to a
single agreement period under the BASIC track, they could seek to
remain under a relatively low level of performance-based risk for a
longer period of time, and thereby curtail their incentive to drive
more meaningful and systematic changes to improve quality of care and
lower growth in FFS expenditures for their assigned beneficiary
populations. Further, high revenue ACOs, whose composition likely
includes institutional providers, particularly hospitals and health
systems, are expected generally to have greater opportunity to
coordinate care for assigned beneficiaries across care settings among
their ACO participants than low revenue ACOs. One approach to ensure
high revenue ACOs accept a level of risk commensurate with their degree
of control over total Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for their
assigned beneficiaries, and to further encourage these ACOs to more
aggressively pursue the program's goals, is to require these ACOs to
transition to higher levels of risk and potential reward.
We proposed to limit high revenue ACOs to, at most, a single
agreement period under the BASIC track prior to transitioning to
participation under the ENHANCED track. We explained our belief that an
approach that allows high
[[Page 67879]]
revenue ACOs that are inexperienced with the accountable care model the
opportunity to become experienced with program participation within the
BASIC track's glide path prior to undertaking the higher levels of risk
and potential reward in the ENHANCED track offers an appropriate
balance between allowing ACOs time to become experienced with
performance-based risk and protecting the Medicare Trust Funds. This
approach recognizes that high revenue ACOs control a relatively large
share of assigned beneficiaries' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
expenditures and generally are positioned to coordinate care for
beneficiaries across care settings, and is protective of the Medicare
Trust Funds by requiring high revenue ACOs to more quickly transition
to higher levels of performance-based risk.
In contrast, we proposed to limit low revenue ACOs to, at most, two
agreement periods under the BASIC track. These agreement periods would
not be required to be sequential, which would allow low revenue ACOs
that transition to the ENHANCED track after a single agreement period
under the BASIC track the opportunity to return to the BASIC track if
the ENHANCED track initially proves too high of risk. An experienced
ACO may also seek to participate in a lower level of risk if, for
example, it makes changes to its composition to include ACO providers/
suppliers that are less experienced with the accountable care model and
the program's requirements. Once an ACO has participated under the
BASIC track's glide path (if eligible), a subsequent agreement period
under the BASIC track would be required to be at the highest level of
risk and potential reward (Level E), according to the proposed approach
to identifying ACOs experienced with performance-based Medicare ACO
initiatives (see section II.A.5.c. of this final rule).
Therefore, we proposed that in order for an ACO to be eligible to
participate in the BASIC track for a second agreement period, the ACO
must meet the requirements for participation in the BASIC track as
described in this final rule (as determined based on whether an ACO is
a low revenue ACO versus high revenue ACO and inexperienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives versus experienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives) and either of the
following: (1) The ACO is the same legal entity as a current or
previous ACO that previously entered into a participation agreement for
participation in the BASIC track only one time; or (2) for a new ACO
identified as a re-entering ACO because at least 50 percent of its ACO
participants have recent prior participation in the same ACO, the ACO
in which the majority of the new ACO's participants were participating
previously entered into a participation agreement for participation in
the BASIC track only one time.
Several examples illustrate this proposed approach. First, for an
ACO legal entity with previous participation in the program, we would
consider the ACO's current and prior participation in the program. For
example, if a low revenue ACO enters the program in the BASIC track's
glide path, and remains an eligible, low revenue ACO, it would be
permitted to renew in Level E of the BASIC track for a second agreement
period. Continuing this example, for the ACO to continue its
participation in the program for a third or subsequent agreement
period, it would need to renew its participation agreement under the
ENHANCED track. As another example, a low revenue ACO that enters the
program in the BASIC track's glide path could participate for a second
agreement under the ENHANCED track, and enter a third agreement period
under Level E of the BASIC track before being required to participate
in the ENHANCED track for its fourth and any subsequent agreement
period.
Second, for ACOs identified as re-entering ACOs because greater
than 50 percent of their ACO participants have recent prior
participation in the same ACO, we would determine the eligibility of
the ACO to participate in the BASIC track based on the prior
participation of this other entity. For example, if ACO A is identified
as a re-entering ACO because more than 50 percent of its ACO
participants previously participated in ACO B during the relevant look
back period, we would consider ACO B's prior participation in the BASIC
track in determining the eligibility of ACO A to enter a new
participation agreement in the program under the BASIC track. For
example, if ACO B had previously participated in two different
agreement periods under the BASIC track, regardless of whether ACO B
completed these agreement periods, ACO A would be ineligible to enter
the program for a new agreement period under the BASIC track and would
be limited to participating in the ENHANCED track. Changing the
circumstances of this example, if ACO B had previously participated
under the BASIC track during a single agreement period, ACO A may be
eligible to participate in the BASIC track under Level E, the track's
highest level of risk and potential reward, but would be ineligible to
enter the BASIC track's glide path because ACO A would have been
identified as experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives (as proposed).
We recognized that the difference in the level of risk and
potential reward under the BASIC track, Level E compared to the payment
model under the ENHANCED track could be substantial for low revenue
ACOs. Therefore, we also considered and sought comment on an approach
that would allow low revenue ACOs to gradually transition from the
BASIC track's Level E up to the level of risk and potential reward
under the ENHANCED track. For example, we sought comment on whether it
would be helpful to devise a glide path that would be available to low
revenue ACOs entering the ENHANCED track. We also considered, and
sought comment on, whether such a glide path under the ENHANCED track
should be available to all ACOs. As another alternative, we considered
allowing low revenue ACOs to continue to participate in the BASIC track
under Level E for longer periods of time, such as a third or subsequent
agreement period. However, we indicated our concern that without a time
limitation on participation in the BASIC track, ACOs may not prepare to
take on the highest level of risk that could drive the most meaningful
change in providers' and suppliers' behavior toward achieving the
program's goals.
As an alternative to the proposed approach for allowing low revenue
ACOs to participate in the BASIC track in any two agreement periods
(non-sequentially), we sought comment on an approach that would require
participation in the BASIC track to occur over two consecutive
agreement periods before the ACO enters the ENHANCED track. This
approach would prevent low revenue ACOs that entered the ENHANCED track
from participating in a subsequent agreement period under the BASIC
track. That is, it would prevent an ACO from moving from a higher level
of risk to a lower level of risk. However, given changes in ACO
composition, among other potential factors, we indicated our belief
that it is important to offer low revenue ACOs some flexibility in
their choice of level of risk from one agreement period to the next.
We proposed to specify these proposed requirements for low revenue
ACOs and high revenue ACOs in revisions to Sec. 425.600, along with
other proposed requirements for determining participation options based
on the experience of the ACO and its ACO participants, as discussed in
section
[[Page 67880]]
II.A.5.c. of this final rule. We proposed to use our determination of
whether an ACO is a low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO in combination
with our determination of whether the ACO is experienced or
inexperienced with performance-based risk (which we proposed to
determine based on the experience of both the ACO legal entity and the
ACO participant TINs with performance-based risk), in determining the
participation options available to the ACO. We sought comment on these
proposals.
More generally, we noted that the proposed approach to redesigning
the program's participation options maintains flexibility for ACOs to
elect to enter higher levels of risk and potential reward more quickly
than is required under the proposed participation options. Any ACO may
choose to apply to enter the program under or renew its participation
in the ENHANCED track. Further, ACOs eligible to enter the BASIC
track's glide path may choose to enter at the highest level of risk and
potential reward under the BASIC track (Level E), or advance to that
level more quickly than is provided for under the automatic advancement
along the glide path.
Comment: A few commenters agreed with the proposed approach to
allow low revenue (typically physician-led) ACOs up to two agreement
periods under the BASIC, while requiring high revenue ACOs (the
typically better-resourced, hospital-based entities) to move more
quickly to the ENHANCED track. Another commenter explained that the
required move to downside risk is appropriate for urban health care
systems that have the scale and resources to absorb a bad year. Several
commenters favored the proposed approach for requiring more rapid
transition to higher risk by high revenue ACOs. A few commenters urged
CMS to encourage more low revenue ACO participation, and to increase
financial alignment with value for high revenue ACOs. More generally, a
few commenters supported the overall framework for the proposed
redesign of the Shared Savings Program, including the proposed
transition from one-sided to two-sided models.
Many commenters expressed concerns about the proposed approach to
restricting the amount of time ACOs may participate in the BASIC track
prior to participation in the ENHANCED track. Some commenters suggested
that all ACOs should be allowed to remain in the BASIC track in Level
E, or a track that meets the nominal risk requirements under the
Quality Payment Program, finding the level of risk offered under the
ENHANCED track to be unbearable.
One commenter, MedPAC, suggested CMS consider allowing all ACOs to
operate in the BASIC track for two agreement periods, suggesting that
it has enough downside risk to encourage ACOs to control costs, and the
modest level of risk in the model may be more palatable to a wider
range of ACOs. However, we note that MedPAC also suggested that because
the ENHANCED track has stronger incentives for cost control, an
argument can be made that all ACOs should move to the ENHANCED track
after one 5-year agreement period in the BASIC track.
Some commenters specifically opposed limiting high revenue ACOs to
one agreement period in the BASIC track. Given that high revenue ACOs
are responsible for a greater share of healthcare spending than low
revenue ACOs, one commenter agreed that it is reasonable to ask high
revenue ACOs to assume greater levels of risk and/or at a faster pace
than low revenue ACOs. But this commenter also suggested that CMS
should also take into account that larger systems must invest in change
across a much broader delivery ``footprint'' and so may require
additional investments over multiple years to make transformative
system changes, and also need a longer time to recoup investments (such
as in the form of shared savings). This commenter suggested that high
revenue ACOs be allowed to remain in Level E of the BASIC track for a
second agreement period.
Some commenters suggested alternatives for distinguishing ACOs:
One commenter suggested that instead of distinguishing
low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs for purposes of determining
the ACO's participation option by track, that the distinction be
used to determine the sharing rate or MSR applied to the ACO within
the BASIC track's glide path. This commenter supported the
alternative consideration to provide low revenue ACOs (particularly
small, rural and physician-led ACOs) either a lower MSR or higher
shared savings rate.
One commenter suggested that CMS consider a combination
of other program policies to drive ACO performance, rather than the
proposed approach to transition ACOs to performance-based risk,
which could include: (1) Dropping ACOs from the program if they have
not achieved savings after several years; (2) Reducing shared
savings payments to ACOs that incur large losses before generating
savings; and (3) Allowing ACOs to take accountability for the
specific types of spending they are capable of controlling, rather
than total Medicare spending.
One commenter suggests that the potential to share in
savings is a sufficient motivation for ACOs, as opposed to
performance-based risk.
Several commenters believe that both CMS and other
researchers have significantly overstated the degree to which the
performance of hospital-based ACOs differs from that of physician-
led ACOs. These commenters urged CMS not move forward with the
proposed approach, and to instead seek ways to support these ACOs,
rather than make it harder for them to achieve savings.
Response: We appreciate commenters' support for the proposed
approach to limiting ACOs' participation in the BASIC track, and
requiring all ACOs to eventually transition to the ENHANCED track.
Specifically, we appreciate commenters' support for the proposed
approach to limiting high revenue ACOs to a single agreement period in
the BASIC track (if eligible based on a determination that they are
inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives),
while limiting low revenue ACOs to a maximum of two agreement periods
in the BASIC track (with ACOs inexperienced with performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiatives being eligible to participate under a single
agreement period in the BASIC track's glide path and a single agreement
period in Level E of the BASIC track).
We recognize that many commenters expressed concern about this
approach, although at this time we decline to adopt commenters'
suggestions that we allow some or all ACOs additional agreement periods
under the BASIC track compared to the proposed approach, or to not
require that ACOs ultimately transition to the ENHANCED track. As
supported by some commenters, we continue to believe that requiring
ACOs to transition to the ENHANCED track, with the highest level of
risk and potential reward under the program, could drive ACOs to more
aggressively pursue the program's goals of improving quality of care
and lowering growth in FFS expenditures for their assigned beneficiary
populations.
We also note that under the longer, 5-year agreement periods we are
finalizing in this final rule (see section II.A.2), the timeline for
entering higher levels of benchmark-based risk remains relatively
consistent with the program's current requirements. Under the program's
current requirements, ACOs must transition to a two-sided model by the
start of their third 3-year agreement period, allowing for not more
than 6 performance years under a one-sided model before being required
to enter either Track 2 or Track 3. A gentler pathway between the
existing Track 1 and the levels of risk and reward under
[[Page 67881]]
the program's current two-sided models has been a long standing request
from ACOs and other program stakeholders, as described in section
II.A.1 of this final rule and as reflected in some comments on the
proposed program redesign. The proposed approach allows a gentler
progression to two-sided risk, including a progression over a 5-year
agreement period for all ACOs inexperienced with performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiatives, and a progression over two, 5-year agreement
periods for low revenue ACOs. We note that this timeline is further
extended for ACOs entering an agreement period beginning on July 1,
2019, since this mid-year start includes an additional 6-month
performance year, resulting in an agreement period of 5.5 years.
We also note also that early entrants into the Shared Savings
Program have been able to participate under a one-sided model for up to
6 performance years, and we anticipate that eligible ACOs will continue
their participation in the BASIC track's glide path to extend their
transition to benchmark-based risk under the ENHANCED track for at
least another 5 years.
We also believe the proposed approach offers the right combination
of a slower transition to the ENHANCED track for low revenue ACOs, and
more rapid progression for high revenue ACOs. We therefore decline the
commenter's suggestion that we require all ACOs to transition to the
ENHANCED track after one 5-year agreement period in the BASIC track.
We also decline to accept the commenters' alternative suggestions.
We are not adopting an approach to distinguish the sharing rates or the
MSR applied to ACOs within the BASIC track's glide path, as described
in sections II.A.3 and II.A.6. of this final rule, since ACOs may elect
their MSR and MLR under performance-based risk. Therefore we decline to
use the low revenue ACO and high revenue ACO distinctions to determine
the financial model features applied to ACOs within the BASIC track's
glide path. This approach would also not achieve our goal of requiring
ACOs to progress to the ENHANCED track over time.
Some suggested alternative approaches, to distinguish ACOs based on
their financial performance, were beyond the scope of the proposed
rule, such as reducing ACOs' shared savings payments if they incurred
large losses in prior years, or allowing ACOs to become accountable for
specific types of spending instead of total Medicare spending. We
believe the latter approach, to segment accountability for
beneficiaries' healthcare costs, would not achieve a key aim of the
program, which is for ACOs to become accountable for total Medicare
Parts A and B FFS expenditures for their assigned beneficiaries, and
could reinforce existing incentives that lead to fragmented care.
Further, we appreciated the suggestion that we remove ACOs with poor
financial performance, which seems similar to our proposed approach to
monitoring and termination for poor financial performance as discussed
in section II.A.5.d of this final rule.
We also disagree with the commenter's suggestion that shared
savings potential alone is a sufficient motivator for ACOs to drive the
most meaningful systematic change in the healthcare system. We believe
that greater risk with the possibility of greater reward under two-
sided models is a pathway for ACOs to transform their care delivery by
lowering growth in expenditures while ensuring they provide
coordinated, high quality care for their Medicare FFS populations. For
this reason we also decline commenters' suggestions that we forgo the
proposed approach and instead seek other ways to support high revenue
ACOs' achievement of the program's goals.
Comment: A few commenters explained that the challenge of being
forced into risk is of great importance to ACOs of all sizes,
composition, and ownership. Some commenters warned that requiring ACOs
to take on high levels of risk before they are ready will result in
program attrition. One commenter explained that regardless of
structure, significant investments are needed in population health
platforms and care process changes for ACOs to bear risk. Several
commenters point to a variety of factors, other than ACO composition,
related to an ACO's readiness to take on performance-based risk. One
commenter explained that the financial position and backing of a
particular ACO as well as the ability to assume risk depends on a
variety of factors, such as local market dynamics, culture, leadership,
financial status, previous program success, and the resources required
to address social determinants of health that influence care and
outcomes for patients. Another commenter described an organization's
ability to bear risk as having many inputs, including payer mix.
Another commenter explained that each ACO is unique and faces different
circumstances that determine its ability to take on higher levels of
risk.
Response: As we have previously described in responding to comments
in this section of this final rule, the current structure of the Shared
Savings Program requires ACO's eventual transition to performance-based
risk while also affording ACOs and their provider/suppliers the
flexibility to redesign care to address the unique needs of their
population and community. While we appreciate that the circumstance of
each ACO may be unique, as commenters point out, we also believe that
the program's requirements are clear about the expectation that ACOs
enter performance-based risk over the course of their participation in
the program, should they choose to continue their participation over of
multiple agreement periods. We believe the proposed approach, including
a glide path within the BASIC track from a one-sided model through
progressively higher levels of performance-based risk offers a gentler
and more manageable approach for ACOs to become experienced with two-
sided models before undertaking more significant levels of risk and
potential reward.
Comment: Commenters described a variety of reasons why high revenue
ACOs would benefit from additional time under lower-risk participation
options. As echoed in other comments, one commenter explained that the
proposed rule would force hospital-centric ACOs to take on additional
risk too quickly, when these ACOs need additional time to adjust their
cost structures and change operating models.
Another commenter described its concerns that, in the current
environment, if CMS pushes to drive losses more quickly to hospitals,
it will be increasingly difficult for hospital systems to invest
dollars back into population health management activities, which is
necessary for long term success of ACO to meet the aims of the Shared
Savings Program.
A few commenters explained that hospital-based, high revenue ACOs,
face greater challenges in taking on performance-based risk because
they tend to be less cohesive groups, which have invested heavily in
developing the infrastructure in both technology platforms and care
management to help their ACOs eventually succeed.
However, another commenter explained that hospitals and health
systems are best equipped to lead other providers in moving toward
downside risk because they have provided--and continue to provide--
significant infrastructure support related to health information
technology, regulatory compliance and other administrative functions
that are key to successful APM implementation.
A few commenters explained that larger systems often already
operate at greater efficiency before entering the
[[Page 67882]]
program, and as a result may often have less spending to trim, which is
a commonly cited concern regarding historical benchmarks. Requiring
transition to higher levels of performance-based risk may limit
participation by these providers in the program.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' explanations of the
challenges some high revenue ACOs may face in taking on performance-
based risk under the proposed redesign of the Shared Savings Program.
We are not persuaded, however, by the suggested reasons to permit high
revenue ACOs additional time under the BASIC track, when we believe
they have the capacity to drive more meaningful, systematic change in
achieving the program's goals by participating under higher levels of
performance-based risk.
As we have described elsewhere in this final rule, we have observed
that low revenue ACOs, which include small, physician-only and rural
ACOs, show better average results compared to high revenue ACOs, which
typically include hospitals (see section V of this final rule). Given
the potential for high revenue ACOs to lower growth in Medicare Parts A
and B FFS expenditures, we believe it is critical to ensure they remain
accountable for the quality of care, and expenditures, for their
assigned beneficiaries. We believe that an outcome of this approach to
program redesign may be new, innovative and more aggressive approaches
to reaching the program's goals of improving quality of care and
lowering growth in Medicare FFS expenditures for beneficiaries.
Regarding the commenter's concern about the participation of
already efficient high revenue ACOs, we note that (as described in
section II.D. of this final rule) we are finalizing additional
modifications to the program's methodology for establishing, updating
and adjusting the ACO's historical benchmark to improve incentives and
to increase the accuracy of the benchmark by incorporating regional
factors in an ACO's first agreement period and better capturing changes
in beneficiary health status. The BASIC track's glide path, coupled
with longer agreement periods and benchmark improvements, including
regional adjustments for efficiency starting in the first agreement
period, as well as new risk adjustment coding intensity adjustments,
should help ACOs transition to performance-based risk.
Comment: Some commenters stated that requiring hospital-based ACOs
to take on more risk sooner will cause these ACOs to cease
participation, or discourage ACO formation.
A few commenters expressed concern that the proposed approach would
make participation more challenging for ACOs that would be high volume,
such as those with hospital participants, and would thereby marginalize
these participants and result in reduced participation by hospital-
based ACOs. These commenters explained that this could lead to their
departure and would squander the significant investments they have made
in care coordination and data-sharing before they were able to pay off
for the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.
Several commenters explained that keeping hospitals in the Shared
Savings Program is critical to reducing total cost of care. One
commenter suggested the high revenue ACO distinction would discourage
participation by the ACOs that can best coordinate acute and ambulatory
care and are more likely to generate substantial savings to the
Medicare program over the long-term.
A few commenters stated that the proposed approach would
disadvantage ACOs that treat complex patients that have higher
expenditures, while other commenters indicated that the proposed
approach would penalize high revenue ACOs for the size of their patient
populations and their volume of services.
Response: We believe a combination of the policy changes being
established with this final rule can help ACOs transform care and
mitigate to some extent commenters' concerns around the populations
served by high revenue ACOs and other challenges faced by these
organizations. For example, as discussed in section II.D. of this final
rule, the potentially smaller regional adjustments for ACOs caring for
complex patients (where the ACOs' expenditures may be higher than
expenditures in the ACO's regional service area) will provide more time
for these ACOs to bring their costs in line with their region. In
addition, these ACOs will benefit from the modified approach to risk
adjustment using full CMS-HCC scores with a 3 percent cap on growth for
the agreement period, which may more accurately capture the conditions
of their patients and account for the health status changes in an ACO's
performance year assigned beneficiary population. Further, eligible
ACOs will have new tools to support care coordination, such as through
expanded coverage of telehealth services and a SNF 3-day rule waiver
(see section II.B. of this final rule), and beneficiary engagement such
as through the opportunity for eligible ACOs to implement Beneficiary
Incentive Programs (see section II.C. of this final rule). Eligible
clinicians in high revenue ACOs may also be eligible to receive QP
status and benefit from incentive payments under the Quality Payment
Program for participation in an Advanced APM under the ENHANCED track
or Level E of the BASIC track (if eligible). High revenue ACOs (and
ACOs more generally) could find their participation in a financial
model that is an Advanced APM to be a factor to their advantage in
attracting and retaining participation of ACO participants and ACO
providers/suppliers. The longer agreement periods will provide more
time for ACOs to become successful and transform care and benefit from
their success, which we believe will be especially important to high
revenue ACOs (including most hospital-based ACOs), which we expect
generally will have more potential savings to achieve. We also note
that while only a small number of ACOs have owed shared losses, we have
observed that one high revenue ACO that incurred shared losses, which
was a hospital-based ACO, continues to participate and work toward
transforming care. This suggests that even ACOs that have incurred
shared losses still can provide a catalyst for making health systems
and provider networks more efficient and effective.
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the need to push high revenue
ACOs to accept greater amounts of risk, pointing to the relative
newness of the Shared Savings Program and the other Medicare payment
reforms that have occurred in recent years. According to this
commenter, these initiatives are straining already limited resources in
hospitals and making it more challenging to keep up with the extremely
rapid pace of payment reforms being pursued by CMS.
Response: As we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule, our
proposed redesign of the Shared Savings Program was informed by our
initial years of experience with the program, including performance
results. However, we do not agree with the commenter's suggestion that
we potentially delay changes to further the achievement of the
program's goals in light of other payment reforms implemented by the
agency. Hospitals have been at the forefront of value-based purchasing
and we believe the principles and lessons learned from quality
improvement and efficiency measures can help inform their success under
larger population-based, value-based programs.
Comment: Some commenters urged CMS to allow even greater
flexibility to
[[Page 67883]]
small, rural, or physician-only ACOs, low revenue ACOs, and ACOs that
include safety net providers, to prepare for the transition to
performance-based risk. Commenters explained that these ACOs face
challenges in that they lack the financial reserves or the financial
backing to move into performance-based risk. One commenter explained:
Small and rural ACOs have achieved excellent clinical quality scores
above national averages even as they beat their spending benchmarks,
however, the natural year-to-year variation in performance and risk of
paying back shared losses even in a single year is too much uncertainty
for providers that live on the margins. Several commenters described
the level of risk in the ENHANCED track as being too high for low
revenue ACOs. One commenter described the distance in risk and downside
loss between the BASIC track's Level E and the ENHANCED track as
``abysmal,'' and undertaking this level of performance-based risk may
be ``financially suicidal'' for a low revenue ACO.
Response: We appreciate commenters' concerns about the obstacles
low revenue ACOs face in transitioning to performance-based risk given
their potentially more limited financial reserves, particularly the
challenges faced by small, rural and physician-only ACOs, and
especially ACOs new to the Shared Savings Program and the accountable
care model. We believe these concerns further support our proposed
approach to providing low revenue ACOs additional time to prepare to
take on the higher levels of performance-based risk required under the
ENHANCED track, by allowing eligible low revenue ACOs up to two, 5-year
agreement periods for a total of 10 years under the BASIC track (or
10.5 years in the case of an ACO with an agreement period beginning on
July 1, 2019).
We also believe that a combination of policy modifications
reflected in our final policies within this final rule address
commenters' concerns and suggestions for a relatively gentler glide
path to two-sided risk for small, rural and physician-only ACOs, and
support continued participation of these ACOs in the Shared Savings
Program. For one, as discussed in section II.A.5.b.(1) of this final
rule, we are finalizing our proposed definitions of low revenue ACOs
and high revenue ACOs with a modification to increase the threshold
percentage used in making these determinations (from 25 percent to 35
percent) so that more ACOs would be considered low revenue ACOs.
Second, we are finalizing higher sharing rates under BASIC track (as
described in section II.A.3 of this final rule) which we believe will
allow ACOs eligible for shared savings access to additional financial
resources to support their operational costs and their participation in
performance-based risk (such as supporting these ACOs in establishing
their repayment mechanism arrangements). Third, as described in section
II.A.5.c of this final rule, we are finalizing a policy modification to
allow additional flexibility for new legal entities, that are low
revenue ACOs and inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives, to participate for up to 3 performance years (or 4
performance years in the case of ACOs entering an agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019) under a one-sided model of the BASIC track's
glide path before transitioning to Level E (the highest level of risk
and potential reward under the BASIC track). Fourth, and lastly, as
described in section II.A.6.c of this final rule, we are modifying our
proposed approach for determining repayment mechanism arrangement
amounts to reduce the burden of these arrangements on all ACOs
participating in the ENHANCED track. Under the modified approach, the
repayment mechanism amount for such ACOs must be equal to the lesser of
the following: 1 percent of the total per capita Medicare Parts A and B
FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries, based on
expenditures for the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of
data are available; or 2 percent of the total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS revenue of its ACO participants, based on revenue for the most
recent calendar year for which 12 months of data are available.
We decline commenters' suggestions that certain ACOs be exempt from
transitioning to performance-based risk (generally) or higher levels of
risk and potential reward. As we explain elsewhere in this section of
this final rule, we believe the progression to performance-based risk
is critical to driving the most meaningful change in providers' and
suppliers' behavior toward achieving the program's goals, and that
participation in two-sided models, and ultimately the ENHANCED track,
should be the goal for all Shared Savings Program ACOs. Therefore, at
this time, we also decline to establish a separate track with
alternative participation options targeted specifically at particular
subsets of ACOs, including those that typically may be low revenue
ACOs.
Comment: A few commenters supported the ability of low revenue ACOs
to transition from the BASIC track to the ENHANCED track after a single
agreement period under the BASIC track, while retaining the opportunity
to return to the BASIC track. One commenter explained its belief that
this approach creates a ``safety net'' that will encourage ACOs that
believe they are ready to bear a significant amount of risk to test
their capabilities in the ENHANCED track as opposed to taking advantage
of both agreement periods in the BASIC track (sequentially).
Response: We appreciate commenters' support for our proposal to
allow low revenue ACOs to participate in the BASIC track in any two
agreement periods (including non-sequentially).
Final Action: After considering the comments we received, we are
finalizing our proposed policies for restricting ACOs' participation in
the BASIC track prior to transitioning to participation in the ENHANCED
track. High revenue ACOs will be limited to, at most, a single
agreement period under the BASIC track prior to transitioning to
participation under the ENHANCED track. Low revenue ACOs will be
limited to, at most, two agreement periods for a total of 10 years
under the BASIC track (or 10.5 years in the case of an ACO that
participates in an agreement period that begins on July 1, 2019, which
spans a total of 5.5 years). These agreement periods do not need to be
sequential. We are specifying these requirements for low revenue ACOs
and high revenue ACOs in revisions to Sec. 425.600, along with other
requirements we are finalizing for determining participation options
based on the experience of the ACO and its ACO participants with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, as discussed in
section II.A.5.c. of this final rule.
c. Determining Participation Options Based on Prior Participation of
ACO Legal Entity and ACO Participants
(1) Overview
In this section of the final rule we describe policies for
determining ACO participation options based on prior participation of
the ACO legal entity and ACO participants. In section II.A.5.c of the
August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41820 through 41834), we proposed
modifications to the regulations to address the following:
Allowing flexibility for ACOs currently within a 3-year
agreement period under the Shared Savings Program to transition
quickly to a new agreement period that is not less than 5 years
under the BASIC track or ENHANCED track.
Establishing definitions to more clearly differentiate
ACOs applying to renew for a second or subsequent agreement period
and
[[Page 67884]]
ACOs applying to re-enter the program after their previous Shared
Savings Program participation agreement expired or was terminated
resulting in a break in participation, and to identify new ACOs as
re-entering ACOs if greater than 50 percent of their ACO
participants have recent prior participation in the same ACO in
order to hold these ACO accountable for their ACO participants'
experience with the program.
Revising the criteria for evaluating an ACO's prior
participation in the Shared Savings Program to determine the
eligibility of ACOs seeking to renew its participation in the
program for a subsequent agreement period, ACOs applying to re-enter
the program after termination or expiration, and ACOs that are
identified as re-entering ACOs based on their ACO participants'
recent experience with the program.
Establishing criteria for determining the participation
options available to an ACO based on its experience with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives (and that of its ACO
participants) and on whether the ACO is a low revenue ACO or high
revenue ACO.
Establishing policies that more clearly differentiate
the participation options, and the applicability of program
requirements that phase-in over time based on the ACO's and ACO
participants' prior experience in the Shared Savings Program or with
other Medicare ACO initiatives.
We summarized the regulatory background for the proposed policies,
which included multiple sections of the program's regulations, as
developed over several rulemaking cycles.
(2) Background on Re-Entry Into the Program After Termination
In the initial rulemaking for the program, we specified criteria
for terminated ACOs seeking to re-enter the program in Sec. 425.222
(see 76 FR 67960 through 67961). In the June 2015 final rule, we
revised this section to address eligibility for continued participation
in Track 1 by previously terminated ACOs (80 FR 32767 through 32769).
Currently, this section prohibits ACOs re-entering the program after
termination from participating in the one-sided model beyond a second
agreement period and from moving back to the one-sided model after
participating in a two-sided model. This section also specifies that
terminated ACOs may not re-enter the program until after the date on
which their original agreement period would have ended if the ACO had
not been terminated (the ``sit-out'' period). This policy was designed
to restrict re-entry into the program by ACOs that voluntarily
terminate their participation agreement, or have been terminated for
failing to meet program integrity or other requirements (see 76 FR
67960 and 67961). Under the current regulations, we only consider
whether an ACO applying to the program is the same legal entity as a
previously terminated ACO, as identified by TIN (see definition of ACO
under Sec. 425.20), for purposes of determining whether the
appropriate ``sit-out'' period of Sec. 425.222(a) has been observed
and the ACO's eligibility to participate under the one-sided model.
Section 425.222 also provides criteria to determine the applicable
agreement period when a previously terminated ACO re-enters the
program. We explained the rationale for these policies in prior
rulemaking and refer readers to the November 2011 and June 2015 final
rules for more detailed discussions.
Additionally, under Sec. 425.204(b), the ACO must disclose to CMS
whether the ACO or any of its ACO participants or ACO providers/
suppliers have participated in the Shared Savings Program under the
same or a different name, or are related to or have an affiliation with
another Shared Savings Program ACO. The ACO must specify whether the
related participation agreement is currently active or has been
terminated. If it has been terminated, the ACO must specify whether the
termination was voluntary or involuntary. If the ACO, ACO participant,
or ACO provider/supplier was previously terminated from the Shared
Savings Program, the ACO must identify the cause of termination and
what safeguards are now in place to enable the ACO, ACO participant, or
ACO provider/supplier to participate in the program for the full term
of the participation agreement (Sec. 425.204(b)(3)).
The agreement period in which an ACO is placed upon re-entry into
the program has ramifications not only for its risk track participation
options, but also for the benchmarking methodology that is applied and
the quality performance standard against which the ACO will be
assessed. ACOs in a second or subsequent agreement period receive a
rebased benchmark as currently specified under Sec. 425.603. For ACOs
that renew for a second or subsequent agreement period beginning in
2017 and subsequent years, the rebased benchmark incorporates regional
expenditure factors, including a regional adjustment. The weight
applied in calculating the regional adjustment depends in part on the
agreement period for which the benchmark is being determined (see Sec.
425.603(c)), with relatively higher weights applied over time. Further,
for an ACO's first agreement period, the benchmark expenditures are
weighted 10 percent in benchmark year 1, 30 percent in benchmark year
2, and 60 percent in benchmark year 3 (see Sec. 425.602(a)(7)). In
contrast, for an ACO's second or subsequent agreement period we equally
weight each year of the benchmark (Sec. 425.603). With respect to
quality performance, the quality performance standard for ACOs in the
first performance year of their first agreement period is set at the
level of complete and accurate reporting of all quality measures. Pay-
for-performance is phased in over the remaining years of the first
agreement period, and continues to apply in all subsequent performance
years (see Sec. 425.502(a)).
We explained our belief that the regulations as currently written
create flexibilities that allow more experienced ACOs to take advantage
of the opportunity to re-form and re-enter the program under Track 1 or
to re-enter the program sooner or in a different agreement period than
otherwise permissible. In particular, terminated ACOs may re-form as a
different legal entity and apply to enter the program as a new
organization to extend their time in Track 1 or enter Track 1 after
participating in a two-sided model. These ACOs would effectively
circumvent the requisite ``sit-out'' period (the remainder of the term
of an ACO's previous agreement period), benchmark rebasing, including
the application of equal weights to the benchmark years and the higher
weighted regional adjustment that applies in later agreement periods,
or the pay-for-performance quality performance standard that is phased
in over an ACO's first agreement period in the program.
(3) Background on Renewal for Uninterrupted Program Participation
In the June 2015 final rule, we established criteria in Sec.
425.224 applicable to ACOs seeking to renew their agreements, including
requirements for renewal application procedures and factors CMS uses to
determine whether to renew a participation agreement (see 80 FR 32729
through 32730). Under our current policies, we consider a renewing ACO
to be an organization that continues its participation in the program
for a consecutive agreement period, without interruption resulting from
termination of the participation agreement by CMS or by the ACO (see
Sec. Sec. 425.218 and 425.220). Therefore, to be considered for timely
renewal, an ACO within its third performance year of an agreement
period is required to meet the application requirements, including
submission of a renewal application, by the deadline specified by CMS,
during the program's typical annual application process. If the ACO's
[[Page 67885]]
renewal application is approved by CMS, the ACO would have the
opportunity to enter into a new participation agreement with CMS for
the agreement period beginning on the first day of the next performance
year (typically January 1 of the following year), and thereby to
continue its participation in the program without interruption.
In evaluating the application of a renewing ACO, CMS considers the
ACO's history of compliance with program requirements generally,
whether the ACO has established that it is in compliance with the
eligibility and other requirements of the Shared Savings Program,
including the ability to repay shared losses, if applicable, and
whether it has a history of meeting the quality performance standard in
its previous agreement period, as well as whether the ACO satisfies the
criteria for operating under the selected risk track, including whether
the ACO has repaid shared losses generated during the prior agreement
period.
Under Sec. 425.600(c), an ACO experiencing a net loss during a
previous agreement period may reapply to participate under the
conditions in Sec. 425.202(a), except the ACO must also identify in
its application the cause(s) for the net loss and specify what
safeguards are in place to enable the ACO to potentially achieve
savings in its next agreement period. In the initial rulemaking
establishing the Shared Savings Program, we proposed, but did not
finalize, a requirement that would prevent an ACO from reapplying to
participate in the Shared Savings Program if it previously experienced
a net loss during its first agreement period. We explained that this
proposed policy would ensure that under-performing organizations would
not get a second chance (see 76 FR 19562, 19623). However, we were
persuaded by commenters' suggestions that barring ACOs that demonstrate
a net loss from continuing in the program could serve as a disincentive
for ACO formation, given the anticipated high startup and operational
costs of ACOs (see 76 FR 67908 and 67909). We finalized the provision
at Sec. 425.600(c) that would allow for continued participation by
ACOs despite their experience of a net loss.
(4) Streamlining Regulations
As described in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41821 through
41825), we proposed to modify the requirements for ACOs applying to
renew their participation in the program (Sec. 425.224) and re-enter
the program after termination (Sec. 425.222) or expiration of their
participation agreement by both eliminating regulations that would
restrict our ability to ensure that ACOs quickly migrate to the
redesigned tracks of the program and strengthening our policies for
determining the eligibility of ACOs to renew their participation in the
program (to promote consecutive and uninterrupted participation in the
program) or to re-enter the program after a break in participation. We
also sought to establish criteria to identify as re-entering ACOs new
ACOs for which greater than 50 percent of ACO participants have recent
prior participation in the same ACO, and to hold these ACO accountable
for their ACO participants' experience in the program.
(a) Defining Renewing and Re-Entering ACOs
We proposed to define a renewing ACO and an ACO re-entering after
termination or expiration of its participation agreement (83 FR 41821
through 41823). Under the program's regulations, there is currently no
definition of a renewing ACO, and based on our operational experience,
this has caused some confusion among applicants. For example, there is
confusion as to whether an ACO that has terminated from the program
would be considered a first time applicant into the program or a
renewing ACO. The definition of these terms is also important for
identifying the agreement period that an ACO is applying to enter,
which is relevant to determining the applicability of certain factors
used in calculating the ACO's benchmark that phase-in over the span of
multiple agreement periods as well as the phase-in of pay-for-
performance under the program's quality performance standards. We
explained that having definitions that clearly distinguish renewing
ACOs from ACOs that are applying to re-enter the program after a
termination, or other break in participation will help us more easily
differentiate between these organizations in our regulations and other
programmatic material. We proposed to define renewing ACO and re-
entering ACO in new definitions in Sec. 425.20.
We proposed to define renewing ACO to mean an ACO that continues
its participation in the program for a consecutive agreement period,
without a break in participation, because it is either: (1) An ACO
whose participation agreement expired and that immediately enters a new
agreement period to continue its participation in the program; or (2)
an ACO that terminated its current participation agreement under Sec.
425.220 and immediately enters a new agreement period to continue its
participation in the program. This proposed definition is consistent
with current program policies for ACOs applying to timely renew their
agreement under Sec. 425.224 to continue participation following the
expiration of their participation agreement. This proposed definition
would include a new policy that would consider an ACO to be renewing in
the circumstance where the ACO voluntarily terminates its current
participation agreement and enters a new agreement period under the
BASIC track or ENHANCED track, beginning immediately after the
termination date of its previous agreement period thereby avoiding an
interruption in participation. We would consider these ACOs to have
effectively renewed their participation early. This part of the
definition is consistent with the proposal to discontinue use of the
``sit-out'' period after termination under Sec. 425.222(a).
We considered two possible scenarios in which an ACO might seek to
re-enter the program. In one case, a re-entering ACO would be a
previously participating ACO, identified by a TIN (see definition of
ACO under Sec. 425.20), that applies to re-enter the program after its
prior participation agreement expired without having been renewed, or
after the ACO was terminated under Sec. 425.218 or Sec. 425.220 and
did not immediately enter a new agreement period (that is, an ACO with
prior participation in the program that does not meet the proposed
definition of renewing ACO). In this case, it is clear that the ACO is
a previous participant in the program. In the other scenario, an entity
applies under a TIN that is not previously associated with a Shared
Savings Program ACO, but the entity is composed of ACO participants
that previously participated together in the same Shared Savings
Program ACO in a previous performance year. Under the current
regulations, there is no mechanism in place to prevent a terminated ACO
from re-forming under a different TIN and applying to re-enter the
program, or for a new legal entity to be formed from ACO participants
in a currently participating ACO. Doing so could allow an ACO to avoid
accountability for the experience and prior participation of its ACO
participants, and to avoid the application of policies that phase-in
over time (the application of equal weights to the benchmark years and
the higher weighted regional adjustment that applies in later agreement
periods,
[[Page 67886]]
or the pay-for-performance quality performance standard that is phased
in over an ACO's first agreement period in the program). We explained
our concern that, under the current regulations, Track 1 ACOs would be
able to re-form to take advantage of the BASIC track's glide path,
which, as proposed, would allow for 2 years under a one-sided model for
new ACOs only (2.5 performance years in the case of an agreement period
starting July 1, 2019). We therefore described our interest in adopting
an approach to better identify prior participation and to specify
participation options and program requirements applicable to re-
entering ACOs.
We proposed to define ``re-entering ACO'' to mean an ACO that does
not meet the definition of a ``renewing ACO'' and meets either of the
following conditions:
(1) Is the same legal entity as an ACO, identified by TIN according
to the definition of ACO in Sec. 425.20, that previously participated
in the program and is applying to participate in the program after a
break in participation, because it is either: (a) An ACO whose
participation agreement expired without having been renewed; or (b) an
ACO whose participation agreement was terminated under Sec. 425.218 or
Sec. 425.220.
(2) Is a new legal entity that has never participated in the Shared
Savings Program and is applying to participate in the program and more
than 50 percent of its ACO participants were included on the ACO
participant list under Sec. 425.118, of the same ACO in any of the 5
most recent performance years prior to the agreement start date.
We noted that a number of proposed policies depend on the prior
participation of an ACO or the experience of its ACO participants,
including: (1) Using the ACO's and its ACO participants' experience or
inexperience with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives to
determine the participation options available to the ACO (proposed in
Sec. 425.600(d)); (2) identifying ACOs experienced with Track 1 to
determine the amount of time an ACO may participate under a one-sided
model of the BASIC track's glide path (proposed in Sec. 425.600(d));
(3) determining how many agreement periods an ACO has participated
under the BASIC track as eligible ACOs are allowed a maximum of two
agreement periods under the BASIC track (proposed in Sec. 425.600(d));
(4) assessing the eligibility of the ACO to participate in the program
(proposed revisions to Sec. 425.224); and (5) determining the
applicability of program requirements that phase-in over multiple
agreement periods (proposed in Sec. 425.600(f)). The proposed
revisions to the regulations to establish these requirements would
apply directly to an ACO that is the same legal entity as a previously
participating ACO. We also discuss throughout the preamble how these
requirements would apply to new ACOs that are identified as re-entering
ACOs because greater than 50 percent of their ACO participants have
recent prior participation in the same ACO.
Several examples illustrate the application of the proposed
definition of re-entering ACO. For example, if ACO A is applying to the
program for an agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, and ACO A is
the same legal entity as an ACO whose previous participation agreement
expired without having been renewed (that is, ACO A has the same TIN as
the previously participating ACO) we would treat ACO A as the
previously participating ACO, regardless of what share of ACO A's ACO
participants previously participated in the ACO. As another example, if
ACO A, applying for a July 1, 2019 start date, were a different legal
entity (identified by a different TIN) from any ACO that previously
participated in the Shared Savings Program, we would also treat ACO A
as if it were an ACO that previously participated in the program (ACO
B) if more than 50 percent of ACO A's ACO participants participated in
ACO B in any of the 5 most recent performance years (that is,
performance year 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, or the 6-month performance
year from January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019), even though ACO A and
ACO B are not the same legal entity.
We explained that looking at the experience of the ACO
participants, in addition to the ACO legal entity, would be a more
robust check on prior participation. It would also help to ensure that
ACOs re-entering the program are treated comparably regardless of
whether they are returning as the same legal entity or have re-formed
as a new entity. With ACOs allowed to make changes to their certified
ACO participant list for each performance year, we have observed that
many ACOs make changes to their ACO participants over time. For
example, among ACOs that participated in the Shared Savings Program as
the same legal entity in both PY 2014 and PY 2017, only around 60
percent of PY 2017 ACO participants had also participated in the same
ACO in PY 2014, on average. For this reason, the ACO legal entity alone
does not always capture the ACO's experience in the program and
therefore it is also important to look at the experience of ACO
participants.
We chose to propose a 5 performance year look back period for
determining prior participation by ACO participants as it would align
with the look back period for determining whether an ACO is experienced
or inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives
as discussed elsewhere in this section of this final rule. We clarified
that the threshold for prior participation by ACO participants is not
cumulative when determining whether an ACO is a re-entering ACO. For
example, assume 22 percent of applicant ACO A's ACO participants
participated in ACO C in the prior 5 performance years, 30 percent
participated in ACO D, and the remaining 48 percent did not participate
in any ACO during this period. ACO A would not be considered a re-
entering ACO (assuming that ACO A is a new legal entity), because more
than 50 percent of its ACO participants did not participate in the same
ACO during the 5-year look back period. Although unlikely, we
recognized the possibility that an ACO could quickly re-form multiple
times and therefore more than 50 percent of its ACO participants may
have been included on the ACO participant list of more than one ACO in
the 5 performance year look back period. In these cases, the most
recent experience of the ACO participants in the new ACO would be most
relevant to determining the applicability of policies to the re-
entering ACO. We therefore proposed that the ACO in which more than 50
percent of the ACO participants most recently participated would be
used in identifying the participation options available to the new ACO.
We opted to propose a threshold of greater than 50 percent because
it would identify ACOs with significant participant overlap and would
allow us to more clearly identify a single, Shared Savings Program ACO
in which at least the majority of ACO participants recently
participated. We also considered whether to use a higher or lower
percentage threshold. A lower threshold, such as 20, 30 or 40 percent,
would further complicate the analysis for identifying the ACO or ACOs
in which the ACO participants previously participated, and the ACO
whose prior performance should be evaluated in determining the
eligibility of the applicant ACO. On the other hand, using a higher
percentage for the threshold would identify fewer ACOs that
significantly resemble ACOs with
[[Page 67887]]
experience participating in the Shared Savings Program.
We considered alternate approaches to identifying prior
participation other than the overall percentage of ACO participants
that previously participated in the same ACO, including using the
percentage of ACO participants weighted by the paid claim amounts, the
percentage of individual practitioners (NPIs) that had reassigned their
billing rights to ACO participants, or the percentage of assigned
beneficiaries the new legal entity has in common with the assigned
beneficiaries of a previously participating ACO. While these
alternative approaches have merit, we concluded that they would be less
transparent to ACOs than using a straight percentage of TINs, as well
as more operationally complex to compute.
We sought comment on these proposed definitions and on the
alternatives considered.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the distinctions
for determining participation options, including evaluating whether
ACOs are new, renewing, or re-entering, add complexity to the program.
A few commenters opposed the approach to identifying re-entering ACOs,
and suggested CMS forgo the policy.
Response: We acknowledge that the approach to identifying re-
entering ACOs and renewing ACOs will add some complexity to program
policies and certain operational processes, such that it requires (for
example) that we establish procedures to identify new legal entities
that are re-entering ACOs because more than 50 percent of their ACO
participants were included on the ACO participant list of the same ACO
in any of the 5 most recent performance years prior to the agreement
start date, as well as to process requests for ACOs seeking to renew
early. However, we believe these definitions for ``renewing ACO'' and
``re-entering ACO'' are timely with the redesign of the program's
participation options and provide needed clarification to the program's
regulations, as well as an opportunity to more consistently evaluate
eligibility for program participation by ACOs whose legal entity, or a
significant portion of the ACO participants, has previous experience in
the Shared Savings Program.
We believe that the proposed definitions for renewing ACOs and re-
entering ACOs, and related changes to the program's regulations for
identifying participation options for these organizations, bolster
program integrity. As we discussed in the August 2018 proposed rule
(see for example, 83 FR 41822) and as we reiterated in this section of
this final rule, we believe that the program's regulations as currently
written create flexibilities that allow more experienced ACOs to
potentially re-form and re-enter the program under participation
options they find advantageous, such as avoiding the transition to
performance-based risk, or avoiding the application of policies that
phase-in over time (the application of equal weights to the benchmark
years and the higher weighted regional adjustment that applies in later
agreement periods, or the pay-for-performance quality performance
standard that is phased in over an ACO's first agreement period in the
program). We also explained that establishing definitions for
``renewing ACO'' and ``re-entering ACO'' will help us more easily
differentiate between these organizations in our regulations and other
programmatic material (83 FR 41821). Further, the removal of the sit-
out period after termination and the allowance for an early renewal
option under the definition of ``renewing ACO'' allows an important
flexibility for ACOs to more readily move to new participation options
under the program redesign without a break in their program
participation.
Comment: We received few comments on the proposed definition of
``renewing ACO.'' Several commenters specifically supported the
proposed definition of renewing ACO. Several commenters expressed
support for the early renewal policy. However, a few comments indicated
some confusion over the early renewal policies.
Response: We thank the commenters for their support of the proposed
definition of ``renewing ACO''. We are finalizing this definition as
proposed. We respond further in this section and in section II.A.7 of
this final rule to those commenters who expressed confusion regarding
the early renewal policy.
Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear that the
opportunity to terminate early and begin a new 5-year agreement is open
to all ACOs, and pointed out that reference is made to Track 2 ACOs
having this opportunity (83 FR 41800). This commenter requested that
CMS clarify in the final rule that all ACOs regardless of their
agreement period start year are offered the opportunity to transition
to the BASIC track or ENHANCED track.
Response: To clarify, the proposed definition of renewing ACO, in
combination with our proposal to discontinue use of the ``sit-out''
period after termination under Sec. 425.222(a), would create the
flexibility for any ACO within an agreement period to voluntarily
terminate its current participation agreement and (if eligible) enter a
new agreement period under the BASIC track or ENHANCED track, beginning
at the start of the next performance year after the termination date of
its previous agreement period, as early as July 1, 2019, thereby
avoiding an interruption in participation. We would consider these ACOs
to have effectively renewed their participation early. We note that we
would assess the eligibility of the ACO to renew early under the
revised evaluation criteria we are finalizing under amendments to Sec.
425.224 as described in section II.A.5.c.(5). of this final rule.
Comment: One commenter, an existing ACO, expressed support for the
early renewal option, and requested the opportunity to early renew as
quickly as possible and with as little disruption as possible. This
commenter seemed to favor benchmark rebasing at the start of the ACO's
new agreement period. The commenter specifically suggested that CMS
account for non-claims based payments consistently across benchmark and
performance year expenditures. This commenter recommended that CMS
provide an exception to enable Track 2 and Track 3 ACOs with physicians
participating in the CPC+ Model to enter a new agreement period under
the ENHANCED track as soon as is practicable to enable rebasing of the
benchmark, ideally on July 1, 2019.
Response: We are finalizing policies in this final rule to allow
for a July 1, 2019 agreement start date as the next available start
date in the Shared Savings Program. We are also finalizing our proposed
approach to remove the ``sit-out'' period after termination and the
proposed definition of ``renewing ACO'' to include the early renewal
option. As we previously explained in responding to comments in this
section of this final rule, early renewal would be an option for all
ACOs within a current agreement period within the Shared Savings
Program. Therefore, the first opportunity for ACOs to renew early will
be available for ACOs that start a 12-month performance year on January
1, 2019. These ACOs may terminate their participation agreements with
an effective date of termination of June 30, 2019, and enter a new
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019.
We also explained in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41831)
that early renewal results in rebasing of the ACO's historical
benchmark. In section II.D. of this final rule we finalize the
methodology for establishing, adjusting and updating the ACO's
historical
[[Page 67888]]
benchmark for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019 and in
subsequent years, and specify these policies in a new section of the
regulations at Sec. 425.601. We note that under this methodology, in
calculating benchmark year expenditures we include individually
beneficiary identifiable final payments made under a demonstration,
pilot or time limited program. Similarly, under the methodology for
calculating performance year expenditures, we also take into
consideration individually beneficiary identifiable final payments made
under a demonstration, pilot or time limited program. (See Sec.
425.605(a)(5)(ii) on the calculation of shared savings and losses under
the BASIC track, Sec. 425.610(a)(6)(ii)(B) on calculation of shared
savings and losses under the ENHANCED track.) We note that these
expenditures are included in the calculations for the relevant year
they are made.
The CPC+ Model began in 2017. Final CPC+ Model payments were
included in expenditures for ACOs' assigned beneficiaries for
performance year and benchmark year 2017, and similarly will be
included in expenditures for subsequent years the model is available.
If an ACO seeks to early renew for a new agreement period beginning on
July 1, 2019, the historical benchmark years for the ACO's new
agreement period will be 2016, 2017 and 2018. Therefore, if applicable,
final CPC+ Model payments would be included in benchmark year
expenditures for 2017 and 2018, and would be included in expenditures
for each of the performance years in which they are made during the
agreement period.
Comment: A few commenters supported the proposed approach to
identifying re-entering ACOs including the proposal to identify new
legal entities as re-entering ACOs if more than 50 percent of its ACO
participants were included on the ACO participant list of the same ACO
in any of the 5 most recent performance years prior to the agreement
start date. One commenter supporting the proposed approach, recognized
the opportunity for ACOs to reorganize or otherwise terminate and re-
enter to secure participation in the Shared Savings Program under
better terms as program rules or market conditions change. Some
commenters generally supported a policy for determining whether an ACO
is a re-entering ACO, but suggested alternative approaches. One
commenter explained that the policy for identifying re-entering ACOs
would be especially important if CMS finalized the proposed program
redesign, as the commenter expected that the redesigned program would
experience considerable churn or turnover in ACO participation, and the
commenter suggested that CMS ensure that ACOs not be precluded from re-
entering the program with ACO participants that previously had
participated in a different ACO.
Several commenters suggested alternative approaches to identifying
re-entering ACOs. One commenter suggested that CMS weight ACO
participant TINs by their number of years in the program, to ensure
that ACO participants with limited experience in the Shared Savings
Program do not tip the scales for a new legal entity to be identified
as a re-entering ACO.
One commenter expressed concern that the approach could ultimately
limit participation by ACOs that are high revenue and new legal
entities but composed of previous ACO participants in a Track 1 ACO.
The commenter explained the proposed approach could expose newly formed
ACO entities to a more aggressive glide path and drive very
inexperienced ACOs, particularly high revenue ACOs, to accept higher
levels of risk more quickly than they are actually prepared to handle.
The commenter alternatively seemed to recommend that CMS identify re-
entering ACOs based on whether both criteria (instead of either
criterion) included in the proposed definition are met: (1) The ACO is
the same legal entity as an ACO that previously participated in the
program, and (2) more than 50 percent of its ACO participants were
included on the ACO participant list of the same ACO in any of the 5
most recent performance years prior to the agreement start date.
Some commenters suggested that CMS should monitor the impact of the
policies for identifying re-entering ACOs and ACOs that are experienced
with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, as well as to
create an appeals process for these determinations. They recommended
using a threshold of 50 percent for both of these determinations
(rather than using the proposed 40 percent threshold for determining
ACOs experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives)
and also setting an additional criterion that would allow an ACO
determined to be a re-entering ACO or experienced performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives to appeal the determination if less than
30 percent of the ACO participants in the ACO were previously part of
the same legal entity.
Response: We appreciate commenters' support of the proposed
definition of re-entering ACO. In response to the commenter's
suggestion that ACOs not be precluded from re-entering the program with
ACO participants that previously had participated in a different ACO,
we note that the proposed definition of a re-entering ACO would allow
us to hold ACOs accountable for the experience of their legal entity
and ACO participants, and ensure they are participating in the program
under participation options and program policies that are reflective of
this experience.
We decline to adopt the commenter's alternative suggestion to
weight ACO participants by their number of years in the program, when
identifying new legal entities as re-entering ACOs based on the prior
participation in the Shared Savings Program by their ACO participants.
We believe this approach may make it more challenging for applicants to
anticipate whether their composition could result in a determination by
CMS that they are a re-entering ACO. We are also concerned that such a
weighting approach, which would allow ACOs to avoid being considered
re-entering ACOs based on the duration of prior participation by ACO
participants, could further encourage ACOs that are re-forming and re-
entering the Shared Savings Program to manipulate their ACO participant
lists to avoid accountability for their experience with the program.
Under the proposed definition of a re-entering ACO and under our
proposals for determining participation options, which we are
finalizing as discussed in section II.A.5.c.(5) of this final rule, new
legal entities identified as re-entering ACOs that are high revenue
ACOs, and inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives, would be eligible for participation under the BASIC
track's glide path. However, as noted by the commenter, if the re-
entering ACO is identified as having previously participated in Track
1, the ACO would be restricted to entering the glide path at Level B,
therefore having relatively less time under a one-sided model compared
to new legal entities that are eligible to enter the glide path at
Level A. We believe that holding ACOs accountable for the previous
experience of the ACO legal entity and its ACO participants in the
Shared Savings Program, and Medicare ACO initiatives more broadly, and
protecting the Trust Funds from ACOs that terminate from the program
and re-enter the program in an effort to take advantage of program
policies designed for ACOs inexperienced with accountable care models
in FFS Medicare, outweigh the commenter's
[[Page 67889]]
concern that this approach could expose a new legal entity to higher
levels of risk and potential reward than the ACO can manage. We would
identify the ACO's participation options at the time of its application
to the program, and the applicant would have the opportunity to
determine whether to enter an agreement period in the Shared Savings
Program under a participation option for which it is eligible.
We decline to adopt an approach that would only recognize ACOs as
re-entering if they are identified as both the same legal entity as a
former program participant, and if a majority of ACO participants
previously participated in the same legal entity. We believe this
approach would be too narrow and not identify some re-entering ACOs
that are the same legal entity as an ACO whose participation agreement
was terminated or whose participation agreement expired without having
been renewed. These ACO legal entities would have previous experience
with the Shared Savings Program and should not be allowed to take
advantage of policies aimed at organizations new to the program's
requirements or the accountable care model more generally.
We believe that some commenters recommending modifications to the
process for determining re-entering ACOs and ACOs that are experienced
with performance-based risk may have had confusion around our proposed
policies. (We respond to the commenters' suggestions about the
alternative approach to identifying ACOs experienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives elsewhere in this section of this
final rule.) We would like to clarify that the policy that we proposed,
and are finalizing in this final rule, for determining new legal
entities to be re-entering ACOs requires that more than 50 percent of
an applicant's ACO participants have participated together as part of
the same legal entity in any of the 5 most recent performance years
prior to the agreement start date. Thus, all ACOs determined to be a
re-entering ACO under this policy would automatically exceed the
commenters' recommended secondary threshold of 30 percent to trigger
eligibility for an appeal process. By contrast, the approach that we
have proposed and are finalizing for determining ACOs experienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives requires that,
cumulatively, at least 40 percent of an applicant's ACO participants
have participated in a performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative
in any of the 5 most recent performance years prior to the agreement
start date, and does not require the ACO participants to have to
participated together in the same legal entity. That being said, we
decline to adopt an approach for determining re-entering ACOs such as
recommended by the commenters that would require a multi-step process.
That is, an initial determination for whether an ACO is a re-entering
ACO, a secondary test to identify whether the ACO is eligible to
request an appeal, and finally an appeal process for the final
determination. We believe such an approach would add complexity as well
as uncertainty as ACOs would need to request an appeal and await a
final determination. Additionally, we currently have an established
process for ACOs to request reconsiderations, as specified in subpart I
of the program's regulations.
We also decline to adopt a lower percentage threshold as part of
identifying new legal entities as re-entering ACOs, for the reasons we
previously described in the August 2018 proposed rule and reiterated in
this final rule. In particular, using a lower threshold for determining
re-entering ACOs would further complicate the analysis for identifying
the ACO or ACOs in which the ACO participants previously participated,
and the ACO whose prior performance should be evaluated in determining
the eligibility of the applicant ACO and for determining the
applicability of program policies that phase-in over time.
More generally, we agree with commenters suggesting that we
evaluate and monitor the policy once implemented.
Comment: One commenter supported a 5-year look back period in the
definition of re-entering ACO, particularly in light of the proposal to
allow for agreement periods of at least 5 years.
The commenter also supported the clarification that the 50 percent
threshold would not be cumulative based on experience in any ACO over
the past five years, but rather, based on 50 percent or more
participants most recently participating in the same ACO. The commenter
agreed this would serve CMS' goal of identifying ACOs with significant
participant overlap (as described in the August 2018 proposed rule)
while minimizing complexity that could easily arise from using other
methods and therefore improve transparency.
Response: We thank the commenters for their support of the proposed
5-year look back period in the definition of ``re-entering ACO'', and
support for an approach under which the threshold for prior
participation by ACO participants is not cumulative.
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the idea that ACOs would
invest substantial upfront start-up costs and undergo a major
organizational shift or undergo the burdensome process of dissolving
and re-forming under a different legal entity, much less voluntarily
subject itself to shared losses, simply to ``game'' the system. The
commenter asserted that the number of ACOs that drop out of the program
after sustaining losses proves that waivers for certain service billing
requirements or fraud and abuse restrictions are not enough to warrant
continued participation in the program without the prospect of earning
shared savings.
Response: We disagree with the commenter and continue to believe
that there is clear value in program participation for ACOs that are
not earning shared savings, as evidenced by the continued participation
of ACOs that have not shared in the savings (such as ACOs that generate
savings below their MSR), or ACOs that remain in the program despite
generating the equivalent of losses, or even after sharing in losses.
ACOs can be the catalyst for changing a health care system or provider
network, and can provide a vehicle for transforming care in a
community. However, we have concerns about the motivation of ACOs that
continue their participation in the program despite poor performance.
Under the program's current requirements, ACOs may continue their
participation in the program despite poor financial performance, and we
believe that the choice of many to do so indicates they may be able to
take advantage of other program features, such as the ability to
benefit from waivers of certain federal requirements in connection with
their participation in the Shared Savings Program, and lack a genuine
motivation to achieve the program's goals. With the more rapid
transition to performance-based risk under the redesign of the
program's participation options we are finalizing in this final rule,
we believe that it is increasingly important for program integrity
purposes that we protect against ACOs seeking to game program
participation options including by re-forming and re-entering the
program in an effort to take advantage of the BASIC track's glide path.
Final Action: After consideration of public comments, we are
finalizing as proposed to define renewing ACO and re-entering ACO in
new definitions in Sec. 425.20.
[[Page 67890]]
We are finalizing our proposal to define renewing ACO to mean an
ACO that continues its participation in the program for a consecutive
agreement period, without a break in participation, because it is
either: (1) An ACO whose participation agreement expired and that
immediately enters a new agreement period to continue its participation
in the program; or (2) an ACO that terminated its current participation
agreement under Sec. 425.220 and immediately enters a new agreement
period to continue its participation in the program.
We are finalizing our proposal to define ``re-entering ACO'' to
mean an ACO that does not meet the definition of a ``renewing ACO'' and
meets either of the following conditions:
(1) Is the same legal entity as an ACO, identified by TIN according
to the definition of ACO in Sec. 425.20, that previously participated
in the program and is applying to participate in the program after a
break in participation, because it is either: (a) An ACO whose
participation agreement expired without having been renewed; or (b) an
ACO whose participation agreement was terminated under Sec. 425.218 or
Sec. 425.220.
(2) Is a new legal entity that has never participated in the Shared
Savings Program and is applying to participate in the program and more
than 50 percent of its ACO participants were included on the ACO
participant list under Sec. 425.118, of the same ACO in any of the 5
most recent performance years prior to the agreement start date.
(b) Eligibility Requirements and Application Procedures for Renewing
and Re-Entering ACOs
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41823), we proposed to
revise our regulations to clearly set forth the eligibility
requirements and application procedures for renewing ACOs and re-
entering ACOs. Therefore, we proposed to revise Sec. 425.222 to
address limitations on the ability of re-entering ACOs to participate
in the Shared Savings Program for agreement periods beginning before
July 1, 2019. In addition, we proposed to revise Sec. 425.224 to
address general application requirements and procedures for all re-
entering ACOs and all renewing ACOs.
In revising Sec. 425.222 (which consists of paragraphs (a) through
(c)), we considered that removing the required ``sit-out'' period for
terminated ACOs under Sec. 425.222(a) would facilitate transition of
ACOs within current 3-year agreement periods to new agreements under
the participation options in the proposed rule. As discussed elsewhere
in this section, we proposed to retain policies similar to those under
Sec. 425.222(b) for evaluating the eligibility of ACOs to participate
in the program after termination. Further, instead of the approach used
for determining participation options for ACOs that re-enter the
program after termination described in Sec. 425.222(c), our proposed
approach to making these determinations is described in detail in
section II.A.5.c.(5). of this final rule.
The ``sit-out'' period policy restricts the ability of ACOs in
current agreement periods to transition to the proposed participation
options under new agreements. For example, if left unchanged, the
``sit-out'' period would prevent existing, eligible Track 1 ACOs from
quickly entering an agreement period under the proposed BASIC track and
existing Track 2 ACOs from quickly entering a new agreement period
under either the BASIC track at the highest level of risk (Level E), if
available to the ACO, or the ENHANCED track. Participating under Levels
C, D, or E of the BASIC track or under the ENHANCED track could allow
eligible physicians and practitioners billing under ACO participant
TINs in these ACOs to provide telehealth services under section 1899(l)
of the Act (discussed in section II.B.2.b. of this final rule), the ACO
could apply for a SNF 3-day rule waiver (as proposed in section
II.B.2.a. of this final rule), and the ACO could elect to offer
incentive payments to beneficiaries under a CMS-approved beneficiary
incentive program (as proposed in section II.C.2. of this final rule).
The ``sit-out'' period also applies to ACOs that deferred renewal
in a second agreement period under performance-based risk as specified
in Sec. 425.200(e)(2)(ii), a participation option we proposed to
discontinue (as described in section II.A.2. of this final rule).
Therefore, by eliminating the ``sit-out'' period, ACOs that deferred
renewal may more quickly transition to the BASIC track (Level E), if
available to the ACO, or the ENHANCED track. An ACO that deferred
renewal and is currently participating in Track 2 or Track 3 may
terminate its current agreement to enter a new agreement period under
the BASIC track (Level E), if eligible, or the ENHANCED track.
Similarly, an ACO that deferred renewal and is currently participating
in Track 1 for a fourth performance year may terminate its current
agreement and the participation agreement for its second agreement
period under Track 2 or Track 3 that it deferred for 1 year. In either
case, the ACO may immediately apply to re-enter the BASIC track (Level
E), if eligible, or the ENHANCED track without having to wait until the
date on which the term of its second agreement would have expired if
the ACO had not terminated.
We noted that, to avoid interruption in program participation, an
ACO that seeks to terminate its current agreement and enter a new
agreement in the BASIC track or ENHANCED track beginning the next
performance year should ensure that there is no gap in time between
when it concludes its current agreement period and when it begins the
new agreement period so that all related program requirements and
policies would continue to apply. For an ACO that is completing a 12
month performance year and is applying to enter a new agreement period
beginning January 1 of the following year, the effective termination
date of its current agreement should be the last calendar day of its
current performance year, to avoid an interruption in the ACO's program
participation. For instance, for a 2018 starter ACO applying to enter a
new agreement beginning on January 1, 2020, the effective termination
date of its current agreement should be December 31, 2019. For an ACO
that starts a 12-month performance year on January 1, 2019, that is
applying to enter a new agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019 (as
discussed in section II.A.7. of this final rule), the effective
termination date of its current agreement should be June 30, 2019.
We proposed to amend Sec. 425.224 to make certain policies
applicable to both renewing ACOs and re-entering ACOs and to
incorporate certain other technical changes, as follows:
(1) Revisions to refer to the ACO's ``application'' more generally,
instead of specifically referring to a ``renewal request,'' so that the
requirements would apply to both renewing ACOs and re-entering ACOs.
(2) Addition of a requirement, consistent with the current
provision at Sec. 425.222(c)(3), for ACOs previously in a two-sided
model to reapply to participate in a two-sided model. We further
proposed that a renewing or re-entering ACO that was previously under a
one-sided model of the BASIC track's glide path may only reapply for
participation in a two-sided model for consistency with our proposal to
include the BASIC track within the definition of a performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiative. As proposed, this included a new ACO
identified as a re-entering ACO because greater than 50 percent of its
ACO participants have recent prior participation in the same ACO that
was previously under a two-sided model or a one-sided model of the
[[Page 67891]]
BASIC track's glide path (Level A or Level B).
(3) Revision to Sec. 425.224(b)(1)(iv) (as redesignated from Sec.
425.224(b)(1)(iii)) to cross reference the requirement that an ACO
establish an adequate repayment mechanism under Sec. 425.204(f), to
clarify our intended meaning with respect to the current requirement
that an ACO demonstrate its ability to repay losses.
(4) Modifications to the evaluation criteria specified in Sec.
425.224(b) for determining whether an ACO is eligible for continued
participation in the program in order to permit them to be used in
evaluating both renewing ACOs and re-entering ACOs, to adapt some of
these requirements to longer agreement periods (under the proposed
approach allowing for agreement periods of at least 5 years rather than
3-year agreements), and to prevent ACOs with a history of poor
performance from participating in the program. As described in detail,
as follows, we addressed: (1) Whether the ACO has a history of
compliance with the program's quality performance standard; (2) whether
an ACO under a two-sided model repaid shared losses owed to the
program; (3) the ACO's history of financial performance; and (4)
whether the ACO has demonstrated in its application that it has
corrected the deficiencies that caused it to perform poorly or to be
terminated.
First, we proposed modifications to the criterion governing our
evaluation of whether the ACO has a history of compliance with the
program's quality performance standard. We proposed to revise the
existing provision at Sec. 425.224(b)(1)(iv), which specifies that we
evaluate whether the ACO met the quality performance standard during at
least 1 of the first 2 years of the previous agreement period, to
clarify that this criterion is used in evaluating ACOs that entered
into a participation agreement for a 3-year period. We proposed to add
criteria for evaluating ACOs that entered into a participation
agreement for a period longer than 3 years by considering whether the
ACO was terminated under Sec. 425.316(c)(2) for failing to meet the
quality performance standard or whether the ACO failed to meet the
quality performance standard for 2 or more performance years of the
previous agreement period, regardless of whether the years were
consecutive.
In proposing this approach, we considered that the current policy
is specified for ACOs with 3-year agreements. With the proposal to
shift to agreement periods of not less than 5 years, additional years
of performance data would be available at the time of an ACO's
application to renew its agreement, and may also be available for
evaluating ACOs re-entering after termination (depending on the timing
of their termination) or the expiration of their prior agreement, as
well as being available to evaluate new ACOs identified as re-entering
ACOs because greater than 50 percent of their ACO participants have
recent prior participation in the same ACO.
Further, under the program's monitoring requirements at Sec.
425.316(c), ACOs with 2 consecutive years of failure to meet the
program's quality performance standard will be terminated. However, we
noted our concern about a circumstance where an ACO that fails to meet
the quality performance standard for multiple, non-consecutive years
may remain in the program by seeking to renew its participation for a
subsequent agreement period, seeking to re-enter the program after
termination or expiration of its prior agreement, or by re-forming to
enter under a new legal entity (identified as a re-entering ACO based
on the experience of its ACO participants).
Second, we proposed to revise the criterion governing the
evaluation of whether an ACO under a two-sided model repaid shared
losses owed to the program that were generated during the first 2 years
of the previous agreement period (Sec. 425.224(b)(1)(v)), to instead
consider whether the ACO failed to repay shared losses in full within
90 days in accordance with subpart G of the regulations for any
performance year of the ACO's previous agreement period. As described
in section II.A.7. of this final rule, CY 2019 will include two, 6-
month performance years. In the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59942
through 59946) we finalized the option for ACOs that started a first or
second agreement period on January 1, 2016, to elect an extension of
their agreement period by 6 months from January 1, 2019 through June
30, 2019. In this final rule we are finalizing an agreement period
start date of July 1, 2019, which includes a 6-month first performance
year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019. We will reconcile
these ACOs, and ACOs that start a 12-month performance year on January
1, 2019, and terminate their participation agreement with an effective
date of termination of June 30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019, separately for the 6-month periods from
January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, and from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, as described in section II.A.7. of this final rule.
In evaluating this proposed criterion on repayment of losses, we would
consider whether the ACO timely repaid any shared losses for these 6-
month performance years, or the 6-month performance period for ACOs
that elect to voluntarily terminate their existing participation
agreement, effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period
starting on July 1, 2019, which we will determine according to the
methodology specified under a new section of the regulations at Sec.
425.609.
The current policy regarding repayment of shared losses is
specified for ACOs with 3-year agreements. With the proposal to shift
to agreement periods of at least 5 years, we considered it would be
appropriate to broaden our evaluation of the ACO's timely repayment of
shared losses beyond the first 2 years of the ACO's prior agreement
period. For instance, without modification, this criterion could have
little relevance when evaluating the eligibility of ACOs in the
proposed BASIC track's glide path that elect to participate under a
one-sided model for their first 2 performance years (or 3 performance
years for ACOs that start an agreement period in the proposed BASIC
track's glide path on July 1, 2019).
We noted that timely repayment of shared losses is required under
subpart G of the regulations (Sec. Sec. 425.606(h)(3) and
425.610(h)(3)), and non-compliance with this requirement may be the
basis for pre-termination actions or termination under Sec. Sec.
425.216 and 425.218. We explained that a provision that permits us to
consider more broadly whether an ACO failed to timely repay shared
losses for any performance year in the previous agreement period would
be relevant to all renewing and re-entering ACOs that may have unpaid
shared losses, as well as all re-entering ACOs that may have been
terminated for non-compliance with the repayment requirement. This
includes ACOs that have participated under Track 2, Track 3, and ACOs
that would participate under the BASIC track or ENHANCED track for a
new agreement period. For ACOs that have participated in two-sided
models authorized under section 1115A of the Act, including the Track
1+ Model, we also proposed to consider whether an ACO failed to repay
shared losses for any performance year under the terms of the ACO's
participation agreement for such model.
Third, we proposed to add a financial performance review criterion
to Sec. 425.224(b) to allow us to evaluate whether the ACO generated
losses that were negative outside corridor for 2 performance years of
the ACO's previous agreement period. We
[[Page 67892]]
proposed to use this criterion to evaluate the eligibility of ACOs to
enter agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019 and in subsequent
years. For purposes of this proposal, an ACO is negative outside
corridor when its benchmark minus performance year expenditures are
less than or equal to the negative MSR for ACOs in a one-sided model,
or the MLR for ACOs in a two-sided model. This proposed approach
relates to our proposal to monitor for financial performance as
described in section II.A.5.d. of this final rule.
Lastly, we proposed to add a review criterion to Sec. 425.224(b),
which would allow us to consider whether the ACO has demonstrated in
its application that it has corrected the deficiencies that caused it
to fail to meet the quality performance standard for 2 or more years,
fail to timely repay shared losses, or to generate losses outside its
negative corridor for 2 years, or any other factors that may have
caused the ACO to be terminated from the Shared Savings Program. We
proposed to require that the ACO also demonstrate it has processes in
place to ensure that it will remain in compliance with the terms of the
new participation agreement.
We proposed to discontinue use of the requirement at Sec.
425.600(c), under which an ACO with net losses during a previous
agreement period must identify in its application the causes for the
net loss and specify what safeguards are in place to enable it to
potentially achieve savings in its next agreement period. We believe
the proposed financial performance review criterion would be more
effective in identifying ACOs with a pattern of poor financial
performance. An approach that accounts for financial performance year
after year allows ACOs to understand if their performance is triggering
a compliance concern and take action to remedy their performance during
the remainder of their agreement period. Further, an approach that only
considers net losses across performance years may not identify as
problematic an ACO that generates losses in multiple years which in
aggregate are canceled out by a single year with large savings.
Although uncommon, such a pattern of performance, where an ACO's
results change rapidly and dramatically, is concerning and warrants
consideration in evaluating the ACO's suitability to continue its
participation in the program.
This proposed requirement is similar to the current provision at
Sec. 425.222(b), which specifies that a previously terminated ACO must
demonstrate that it has corrected deficiencies that caused it to be
terminated from the program and has processes in place to ensure that
it will remain in compliance with the terms of its new participation
agreement. We proposed to discontinue use of Sec. 425.222. We
explained that adding a similar requirement to Sec. 425.224 would
allow us to more consistently apply policies to renewing and re-
entering ACOs. Further, applying this requirement to both re-entering
and renewing ACOs would safeguard the program against organizations
that have not met the program's goals or complied with program
requirements and that may not be qualified to participate in the
program, and therefore this approach would be protective of the
program, the Trust Funds, and Medicare FFS beneficiaries.
For ACOs identified as re-entering ACOs because greater than 50
percent of their ACO participants have recent prior participation in
the same ACO, we would determine the eligibility of the ACO to
participate in the program based on the past performance of this other
entity. For example, if ACO A is identified as a re-entering ACO
because more than 50 percent of its ACO participants previously
participated in ACO B during the relevant look back period, we would
consider ACO B's financial performance, quality performance, and
compliance with other program requirements in determining the
eligibility of ACO A to enter a new participation agreement in the
program.
Comment: We received few comments directly addressing the proposal
to remove the ``sit-out'' period after termination. Generally, the
comments we received were supportive of the proposal to modify current
restrictions that prevent an ACO from terminating its participation
agreement and re-entering the program before the existing agreement
period would have ended. Commenters explained that this ``sit-out''
period is unnecessary and shuts healthcare providers out of
participating in an essential CMS value-based program. Commenters also
supported eliminating this restriction to allow the flexibility for an
ACO in a current 3-year agreement period to terminate its participation
agreement and then enter a new 5-year agreement period under one of the
proposed redesigned participation options. One commenter explained that
maintaining the sit-out period after termination could diminish
participation in the program and restrict the ability of ACOs in
current agreement periods to transition to the proposed participation
options under new agreements.
Response: We appreciate commenters' support of the proposal to
remove the required ``sit-out'' period for terminated ACOs under Sec.
425.222(a). In particular, we appreciate commenters' support of this
approach which will facilitate transition of ACOs to new agreements
under the participation options established in this final rule,
including the transition of ACOs currently in 3-year agreement periods
to new agreement periods of at least 5-years through the early renewal
process described in section II.A.5.c.(4).(a). of this final rule.
Comment: One commenter recommended that CMS take into account the
impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances on ACOs when
applying the prior participation criteria.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion that we take
into account the impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances
when evaluating the eligibility of ACOs to renew their participation in
or re-enter the Shared Savings Program. We note that, under our
proposed evaluation criteria, we would also consider whether the ACO
has demonstrated in its application that it has corrected the
deficiencies that caused it to perform poorly or to be terminated. We
believe that this provides a means for ACOs to explain the particular
circumstances that affected their results during their prior
participation, including the impact of extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances, and for CMS to consider this information in evaluating
the eligibility of ACOs to renew their participation in or re-enter the
Shared Savings Program. We will also continue to monitor the impact of
extreme and uncontrollable circumstances on ACOs, particularly as we
gain experience with the disaster-relief policies we have finalized for
performance year 2017 and subsequent performance years, including
adjusting quality performance scores for affected ACOs, and mitigating
shared losses for ACOs under two-sided models, and will consider
whether any changes to our eligibility criteria may be necessary to
account for the effects of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances.
Any such changes would be made through notice and comment rulemaking.
Comment: Another commenter suggested we streamline the renewal
process for ACOs that have demonstrated positive performance results,
such as requiring that they complete a brief form with minimal
information required.
Response: In the CY 2018 PFS final rule (82 FR 53217 through
53222), we
[[Page 67893]]
modified the program's application to reduce burden on all applicants.
These changes included revisions to Sec. 425.204 to remove the
requirements for ACOs to submit certain documents and narratives as
part of its Shared Savings Program application. We believe these
requirements have streamlined the application process. As described in
section II.A.5.c.(5).(d) of this final rule, we are discontinuing use
of condensed Shared Savings Program applications by former Physician
Group Practice (PGP) demonstration sites and former Pioneer ACOs. We
explain our belief that it is no longer necessary to permit these
entities to use condensed application forms. For similar reasons, we
therefore also decline to allow alternative applications for other
categories of ACOs.
Comment: One commenter suggested that CMS revisit the evaluation
criterion for prior quality performance relevant to ACOs' participation
in longer agreement periods in future rulemaking as it becomes
implemented and applicable to ACOs over time.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion to consider our
experience with the evaluation criterion for poor quality performance
in light of longer agreement periods (not less than 5-years) finalized
in this final rule. As with other program policies, we may revisit this
approach based on lessons learned, in future rulemaking.
Final Action: After consideration of public comments, we are
finalizing as proposed to revise Sec. 425.222 to remove the required
``sit-out'' period for terminated ACOs under Sec. 425.222(a) to
facilitate transition of ACOs to new agreements under the participation
options established in this final rule. We are retaining policies
similar to those under Sec. 425.222(b) for evaluating the eligibility
of ACOs to participate in the program after termination in
modifications to Sec. 425.224. Instead of the approach used for
determining participation options for ACOs that re-enter the program
after termination described in Sec. 425.222(c), we will make these
determinations consistent with our final policies described in section
II.A.5.c.(5) of this final rule.
We received no comments directly addressing the proposals to revise
Sec. 425.224 to make certain policies applicable to both renewing ACOs
and re-entering ACOs and to incorporate certain other technical
changes, as described in this section of this final rule. We are
finalizing as proposed amendments to Sec. 425.224 to include the
following changes:
Revisions to refer to the ACO's ``application'' more
generally, instead of specifically referring to a ``renewal
request,'' so that the requirements would apply to both renewing
ACOs and re-entering ACOs.
Addition of a requirement, consistent with the current
provision at Sec. 425.222(c)(3), for ACOs previously in a two-sided
model to reapply to participate in a two-sided model. We are
finalizing an approach for determining participation options under
which a renewing or re-entering ACO that was previously under a one-
sided model of the BASIC track's glide path may only reapply for
participation in a two-sided model for consistency with our final
policy to include the BASIC track within the definition of a
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative (described in section
II.A.5.c.(5) of this final rule). This includes a new ACO identified
as a re-entering ACO because greater than 50 percent of its ACO
participants have recent prior participation in the same ACO that
was previously under a two-sided model or a one-sided model of the
BASIC track's glide path (Level A or Level B).
Revision to Sec. 425.224(b)(1)(iv) (as redesignated
from Sec. 425.224(b)(1)(iii)) to cross reference the requirement
that an ACO establish an adequate repayment mechanism under Sec.
425.204(f), to clarify our intended meaning with respect to the
current requirement that an ACO demonstrate its ability to repay
losses.
Modifications to the evaluation criteria specified in
Sec. 425.224(b) for determining whether an ACO is eligible for
continued participation in the program in order to permit them to be
used in evaluating both renewing ACOs and re-entering ACOs, to adapt
some of these requirements to longer agreement periods (under the
proposed approach allowing for agreement periods of at least 5 years
rather than 3-year agreements), and to prevent ACOs with a history
of poor performance from participating in the program. The criteria
include: (1) Whether the ACO has a history of compliance with the
program's quality performance standard; (2) the ACO's history of
financial performance; (3) whether an ACO under a two-sided model
repaid shared losses owed to the program; and (4) whether the ACO
has demonstrated in its application that it has corrected the
deficiencies that caused it to perform poorly or to be terminated.
In light of these other final policies, we are also finalizing our
proposal to discontinue use of the requirement at Sec. 425.600(c),
under which an ACO with net losses during a previous agreement period
must identify in its application the causes for the net loss and
specify what safeguards are in place to enable it to potentially
achieve savings in its next agreement period.
(5) Proposed Evaluation Criteria for Determining Participation Options
(a) Background
As we explained in section II.A.5.c.(5) of the August 2018 proposed
rule (83 FR 41825 through 41834), we have a number of concerns about
the vulnerability of certain program policies to gaming by ACOs seeking
to continue in the program under the BASIC track's glide path, as well
as the need to ensure that an ACO's participation options are
commensurate with the experience of the organization and its ACO
participants with the Shared Savings Program and other performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives.
First, as the program matures and ACOs become more prevalent
throughout the country, and as an increasing number of ACO participants
become experienced in different Medicare ACO initiatives with differing
levels of risk, the regulations as currently written create
flexibilities that would allow more experienced ACOs to take advantage
of the opportunity to participate under the proposed BASIC track's
glide path.
There are many Medicare ACO initiatives in which organizations may
gain experience, specifically: Shared Savings Program Track 1, Track 2
and Track 3, as well as the proposed BASIC track and ENHANCED track,
and the Track 1+ Model, Pioneer ACO Model, Next Generation ACO Model,
and the Comprehensive End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Care (CEC) Model.
All but Shared Savings Program Track 1 ACOs and non-Large Dialysis
Organization (LDO) End-Stage Renal Disease Care Organizations (ESCOs)
participating in the one-sided model track of the CEC Model participate
in a degree of performance-based risk within an ACO's agreement period
in the applicable program or model.
We proposed to discontinue application of the policies in Sec.
425.222(a). As a result of this change, we would allow ACOs currently
participating in Track 1, Track 2, Track 3, or the Track 1+ Model, to
choose whether to finish their current agreement or to terminate and
apply to immediately enter a new agreement period through an early
renewal. We explained our concern that removing the existing safeguard
under Sec. 425.222(a) without putting in place other policies that
assess an ACO's experience with performance-based risk would enable
ACOs to participate in the BASIC track's glide path in Level A and
Level B, under a one-sided model, terminate, and enter a one-sided
model of the glide path again.
We also stated our concern that existing and former Track 1 ACOs
would have the opportunity to gain additional time under a one-sided
model of the BASIC track's glide path before accepting performance-
based risk. Under the current regulations, Track 1 ACOs are limited to
two
[[Page 67894]]
agreement periods under a one-sided model before transitioning to a
two-sided model beginning with their third agreement period (see Sec.
425.600(b)). Without some restriction, Track 1 ACOs that would
otherwise be required to assume performance-based risk at the start of
their third agreement period in the program could end up continuing to
participate under a one-sided model (BASIC track's Levels A and B) for
2 additional performance years, or 3 additional performance years in
the case of ACOs that enter the BASIC track's glide path for an
agreement period of 5 years and 6 months beginning July 1, 2019, under
the participation options as proposed. We explained our belief that the
performance-based risk models within the BASIC track's glide path would
offer former Track 1 ACOs an opportunity to continue participation
within the program under relatively low levels of two-sided risk and
that these ACOs have sufficient experience with the program to begin
the gradual transition to performance-based risk. Therefore some
restriction would be needed to prevent all current and previously
participating Track 1 ACOs from taking advantage of additional time
under a one-sided model in the BASIC track's glide path and instead to
encourage their more rapid progression to performance-based risk. For
similar reasons we also believed it would be important to prevent new
ACOs identified as re-entering ACOs because greater than 50 percent of
their ACO participants have recent prior participation in a Track 1 ACO
from also taking advantage of additional time under a one-sided model
in the BASIC track's glide path. This restriction would help to ensure
that ACOs do not re-form as new legal entities to maximize the time
allowed under a one-sided model.
We also considered that currently Sec. 425.202(b) of the program's
regulations addresses application requirements for organizations that
were previous participants in the PGP demonstration, which concluded in
December 2012 with the completion of the PGP Transition Demonstration,
and the Pioneer ACO Model, which concluded in December 2016, as
described elsewhere in this section. We proposed to eliminate these
provisions, while at the same time proposing criteria for identifying
ACOs and ACO participants with previous experience in Medicare ACO
initiatives as part of a broader approach to determining available
participation options for applicants.
Second, using prior participation by ACO participant TINs in
Medicare ACO initiatives along with the prior participation of the ACO
legal entity would allow us to gauge the ACO's experience, given the
observed churn in ACO participants over time and our experience with
determining eligibility to participate in the Track 1+ Model. ACOs are
allowed to make changes to their certified ACO participant list for
each performance year, and we have observed that, each year, about 80
percent of ACOs make ACO participant list changes. We also considered
CMS' recent experience with determining the eligibility of ACOs to
participate in the Track 1+ Model. The Track 1+ Model is designed to
encourage more group practices, especially small practices, to advance
to performance-based risk. As such, it does not allow participation by
current or former Shared Savings Program Track 2 or Track 3 ACOs,
Pioneer ACOs, or Next Generation ACOs. As outlined in the Track 1+
Model Fact Sheet, the same legal entity that participated in any of
these performance-based risk ACO initiatives cannot participate in the
Track 1+ Model. Furthermore, an ACO would not be eligible to
participate in the Track 1+ Model if 40 percent or more of its ACO
participants had participation agreements with an ACO that was
participating in one of these performance-based risk ACO initiatives in
the most recent prior performance year.
Third, any approach to determining participation options relative
to the experience of ACOs and ACO participants must also factor in the
differentiation between low revenue ACOs and high revenue ACOs, as
previously discussed in this section.
Fourth, and lastly, we explained that the experience of ACOs and
their ACO participants in Medicare ACO initiatives should be considered
in determining which track (BASIC track or ENHANCED track) the ACO is
eligible to enter as well as the applicability of policies that phase-
in over time, namely the equal weighting of benchmark year
expenditures, the policy of adjusting the benchmark based on regional
FFS expenditures (which, for example, applies different weights in
calculating the regional adjustment depending upon the ACO's agreement
period in the program) and the phase-in of pay-for-performance under
the program's quality performance standards.
Although Sec. 425.222(c) specifies whether a former one-sided
model ACO can be considered to be entering its first or second
agreement period under Track 1 if it is re-entering the program after
termination, the current regulations do not otherwise address how we
should determine the applicable agreement period for a previously
participating ACO after termination or expiration of its previous
participation agreement.
(b) Approach to Determining ACOs' Participation Options
In the August 2018 proposed rule we stated our preference for an
approach that would help to ensure that ACOs, whether they are initial
applicants to the program, renewing ACOs or re-entering ACOs, would be
treated comparably (83 FR 41826). Any approach should also ensure
eligibility for participation options reflects the ACO's and ACO
participants' experience with the program and other Medicare ACO
initiatives and be transparent. Therefore, we proposed to identify the
available participation options for an ACO (regardless of whether it is
applying to enter, re-enter, or renew its participation in the program)
by considering all of the following factors: (1) Whether the ACO is a
low revenue ACO or a high revenue ACO; and (2) the level of risk with
which the ACO or its ACO participants has experience based on
participation in Medicare ACO initiatives in recent years.
As a factor in determining an ACO's participation options, we
proposed to establish requirements for evaluating whether an ACO is
inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives such
that the ACO would be eligible to enter into an agreement period under
the BASIC track's glide path or whether the ACO is experienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives and therefore limited
to participating under the higher-risk tracks of the Shared Savings
Program (either an agreement period under the maximum level of risk and
potential reward for the BASIC track (Level E), or the ENHANCED track).
To determine whether an ACO is inexperienced with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives, we proposed that both of the following
requirements would need to be met: (1) The ACO legal entity has not
participated in any performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative (for
example, the ACO is a new legal entity identified as an initial
applicant or the same legal entity as a current or previously
participating Track 1 ACO); and (2) CMS determines that less than 40
percent of the ACO's ACO participants participated in a performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiative in each of the 5 most recent
performance years prior to the agreement start date.
We proposed that CMS would determine that an ACO is experienced
[[Page 67895]]
with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives if either of the
following criteria are met: (1) The ACO is the same legal entity as a
current or previous participant in a performance-based risk Medicare
ACO initiative; or (2) CMS determines that 40 percent or more of the
ACO's ACO participants participated in a performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiative in any of the 5 most recent performance years
prior to the agreement start date.
We proposed to specify these requirements in a new provision at
Sec. 425.600(d). This provision would be used to evaluate eligibility
for specific participation options for any ACO that is applying to
enter the Shared Savings Program for the first time or to re-enter
after termination or expiration of its previous participation
agreement, or any ACO that is renewing its participation. As specified
in the proposed definition of re-entering ACO, we also proposed to
apply the provisions at Sec. 425.600(d) to new ACOs identified as re-
entering ACOs because greater than 50 percent of their ACO participants
have recent prior participation in the same ACO. Thus, the proposed
provision at Sec. 425.600(d) would also apply in determining
eligibility for these ACOs to enter the BASIC track's glide path for
agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years.
Because the 40 percent threshold that we proposed to use to identify
ACOs as experienced or inexperienced with performance-based risk on the
basis of their ACO participants' prior participation in certain
Medicare ACO initiatives is lower than the 50 percent threshold that
would be used to identify new legal entities as re-entering ACOs based
on the prior participation of their ACO participants in the same ACO,
this proposed policy would automatically capture new legal entities
identified as re-entering ACOs that have experience with performance-
based risk based on the experience of their ACO participants.
We also proposed to add new definitions at Sec. 425.20 for
``Experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives'',
``Inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives''
and ``Performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative''.
We proposed to define ``performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiative'' to mean an initiative implemented by CMS that requires an
ACO to participate under a two-sided model during its agreement period.
We proposed this would include Track 2, Track 3 or the ENHANCED track,
and the proposed BASIC track (including Level A through Level E) of the
Shared Savings Program. We also proposed this would include the
following Innovation Center ACO Models involving two-sided risk: The
Pioneer ACO Model, Next Generation ACO Model, the performance-based
risk tracks of the CEC Model (including the two-sided risk tracks for
LDO ESCOs and non-LDO ESCOs), and the Track 1+ Model. The proposed
definition also included such other Medicare ACO initiatives involving
two-sided risk as may be specified by CMS.
We proposed to define ``experienced with performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiatives'' to mean an ACO that CMS determines meets
either of the following criteria:
The ACO is the same legal entity as a current or
previous ACO that is participating in, or has participated in, a
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative as defined under
Sec. 425.20, or that deferred its entry into a second Shared
Savings Program agreement period under Track 2 or Track 3 in
accordance with Sec. 425.200(e).
40 percent or more of the ACO's ACO participants
participated in a performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative as
defined under Sec. 425.20, or in an ACO that deferred its entry
into a second Shared Savings Program agreement period under Track 2
or Track 3 in accordance with Sec. 425.200(e), in any of the 5 most
recent performance years prior to the agreement start date.
As we previously discussed, we proposed to discontinue use of the
``sit-out'' period under Sec. 425.222(a) as well as the related ``sit-
out'' period for ACOs that deferred renewal under Sec. 425.200(e).
Thus, we proposed to identify all Track 1 ACOs that deferred renewal as
being experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives.
This would include ACOs that are within a fourth and final year of
their first agreement period under Track 1 because they were approved
to defer entry into a second agreement period under Track 2 or Track 3,
and ACOs that have already entered their second agreement period under
a two-sided model after a one year deferral. Under Sec. 425.200(e)(2),
in the event that a Track 1 ACO that has deferred its renewal
terminates its participation agreement before the start of the first
performance year of its second agreement period under a two-sided
model, the ACO is considered to have terminated its participation
agreement for its second agreement period under Sec. 425.220. In this
case, when the ACO seeks to re-enter the program after termination, it
would need to apply for a two-sided model. Our proposal to consider
ACOs that deferred renewal to be experienced with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives and therefore eligible for either the
BASIC track's Level E (if a low revenue ACO and certain other
requirements are met) or the ENHANCED track, would ensure that ACOs
that deferred renewal continue to be required to participate under a
two-sided model in all future agreement periods under the program
consistent with our current policy under Sec. 425.200(e)(2).
We proposed to define ``inexperienced with performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiatives'' to mean an ACO that CMS determines meets all
of the following requirements:
The ACO is a legal entity that has not participated in
any performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative as defined under
Sec. 425.20, and has not deferred its entry into a second Shared
Savings Program agreement period under Track 2 or Track 3 in
accordance with Sec. 425.200(e); and
Less than 40 percent of the ACO's ACO participants
participated in a performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative as
defined under Sec. 425.20, or in an ACO that deferred its entry
into a second Shared Savings Program agreement period under Track 2
or Track 3 in accordance with Sec. 425.200(e), in each of the 5
most recent performance years prior to the agreement start date.
Under our proposed approach, for an ACO to be eligible to enter an
agreement period under the BASIC track's glide path, less than 40
percent of its ACO participants can have participated in a performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiative in each of the five prior
performance years. This proposed requirement was modeled after the
threshold currently used in the Track 1+ Model (see Track 1+ Model Fact
Sheet), although with a longer look back period. Based on experience
with the Track 1+ Model during the 2018 application cycle, we did not
believe that the proposed parameters would be excessively restrictive.
We considered the following issues in developing our proposed approach:
(1) Whether to consider participation of ACO participants in a
particular ACO, or cumulatively across multiple ACOs, during the 5-year
look back period; (2) whether to use a shorter or longer look back
period; and (3) whether to use a threshold amount lower than 40
percent.
We proposed that in applying this threshold, we would not limit our
consideration to ACO participants that participated in the same ACO or
the same performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative during the look
back period. Rather, we would determine, cumulatively, what percentage
of ACO participants were in any performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiative in each of the 5 most recent performance years prior to the
agreement start date.
[[Page 67896]]
We provided the following illustrations help to clarify the use of the
proposed threshold for determining ACO participants' experience with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives.
For applicants applying to enter the BASIC track for an agreement
period beginning on July 1, 2019, for example, we proposed that we
would consider what percentage of the ACO participants participated in
any of the following during 2019 (January-June), 2018, 2017, 2016, and
2015: Track 2 or Track 3 of the Shared Savings Program, the Track 1+
Model, the Pioneer ACO Model, the Next Generation ACO Model, or the
performance-based risk tracks of the CEC Model. In future years (in
determining eligibility for participation options for agreement periods
starting in 2020 and subsequent years), we would also consider prior
participation in the BASIC track and ENHANCED track (which we proposed
would become available for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019
and in subsequent years).
An ACO would be ineligible for the BASIC track's glide path if, for
example, in the performance year prior to the start of the agreement
period, 20 percent of its ACO participants participated in a Track 3
ACO and 20 percent of its ACO participants participated in a Next
Generation ACO, even if the ACO did not meet or exceed the 40 percent
threshold in any of the remaining 4 performance years of the 5-year
look back period.
We considered a number of alternatives for the length of the look
back period for determining an ACO's experience or inexperience with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives. For example, we
considered using a single performance year look back period, as used
under the Track 1+ Model. We also considered using a longer look back
period, for example of greater than 5 performance years, or a shorter
look back period that would be greater than 1 performance year, but
less than 5 performance years, such as a 3 performance year look back
period.
A number of considerations informed our proposal to use a 5
performance year look back period. For one, a longer look back period
would help to guard against a circumstance where an ACO enters the
BASIC track's glide path, terminates its agreement after one or 2
performance years under a one-sided model and seeks to enter the
program under the one-sided model of the glide path. Whether or not the
ACO applies to enter the program as the same legal entity or a new
legal entity, the proposed eligibility criteria would identify this ACO
as experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives if
its ACO participant list remains relatively unchanged. Second, a longer
look back period may reduce the incentive for organizations to wait out
the period in an effort to re-form as a new legal entity with the same
or very similar composition of ACO participants for purposes of gaming
program policies. Third, a longer look back period also recognizes that
new ACOs composed of ACO participants that were in performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives many years ago (for instance more than 5
performance years prior to the ACO's agreement start date) may benefit
from gaining experience with the program's current requirements under
the glide path, prior to transitioning to higher levels of risk and
reward. Fourth, and lastly, in using the 5 most recent performance
years prior to the start date of an ACO's agreement period, for ACOs
applying to enter an agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, we
proposed to consider the participation of ACO participants during the
first 6 months of 2019. This would allow us to capture the ACO
participants' most recent prior participation in considering an ACO's
eligibility for participation options for an agreement period beginning
July 1, 2019. An alternative approach that bases the look back period
on prior calendar years would overlook this partial year of
participation in 2019.
We also considered using a threshold amount lower than 40 percent.
Based on checks performed during the 2018 application cycle, for the
average Track 1+ Model applicant, less than 2 percent of ACO
participants had participated under performance-based risk in the prior
year. The maximum percentage observed was 30 percent. In light of these
findings, we considered whether to propose a lower threshold for
eligibility to participate in the BASIC track's glide path. However,
our goal was not to be overly restrictive, but rather to ensure that
ACOs with significant experience with performance-based risk are
appropriately placed. While we indicated our preference for 40 percent
for its consistency with the Track 1+ Model requirement, we also sought
comment on other numeric thresholds.
As previously discussed in this section, some restriction would be
needed to prevent all current and previously participating Track 1
ACOs, and new ACOs identified as re-entering ACOs because of their ACO
participants' prior participation in a Track 1 ACO, from taking
advantage of additional time under a one-sided model in the BASIC
track's glide path. We explained that an approach that restricts the
amount of time a former Track 1 ACO or a new ACO, identified as a re-
entering ACO because of its ACO participants' prior participation in a
Track 1 ACO, may participate in the one-sided models of the BASIC
track's glide path (Level A and Level B) would balance several
concerns. Allowing Track 1 ACOs and eligible re-entering ACOs some
opportunity to continue participation in a one-sided model within the
BASIC track's glide path could smooth their transition to performance-
based risk. For example, it would provide these ACOs a limited time
under a one-sided model in a new agreement period under the BASIC
track, during which they could gain experience with their rebased
historical benchmark, and prepare for the requirements of participation
in a two-sided model (such as establishing a repayment mechanism
arrangement). Limiting time in the one-sided models of the BASIC
track's glide path for former Track 1 ACOs and new ACOs that are
identified as re-entering ACOs because of their ACO participants'
recent prior participation in the same Track 1 ACO would also allow
these ACOs to progress more rapidly to performance-based risk, and
therefore further encourage accomplishment of the program's goals.
After weighing these considerations, we proposed that ACOs that
previously participated in Track 1 of the Shared Savings Program or new
ACOs, for which the majority of their ACO participants previously
participated in the same Track 1 ACO, that are eligible to enter the
BASIC track's glide path, may enter a new agreement period under either
Level B, C, D or E. Former Track 1 ACOs and new ACOs identified as re-
entering ACOs because of their ACO participants' prior participation in
a Track 1 ACO would not be eligible to participate under Level A of the
glide path. Therefore, if an ACO enters the glide path at Level B and
is automatically transitioned through the levels of the glide path, the
ACO would participate in Level E for the final 2 performance years of
its agreement period. For a former Track 1 ACO or a new ACO identified
as a re-entering ACO because of its ACO participants' prior
participation in a Track 1 ACO that enters an agreement period in the
BASIC track's glide path beginning on July 1, 2019, the ACO could
participate under Level B for a 6-month performance year from July 1,
2019 through December 31, 2019 and the 12 month performance year 2020
(as
[[Page 67897]]
discussed in section II.A.7.c. of this final rule). A former Track 1
ACO or a new ACO identified as a re-entering ACO because of its ACO
participants' prior participation in a Track 1 ACO that begins an
agreement period in the BASIC track's glide path in any subsequent year
(2020 and onward) could participate in Level B for 1 performance year
before advancing to a two-sided model within the glide path.
We also considered a more aggressive approach to transitioning ACOs
with experience in Track 1 to performance-based risk. Specifically, we
considered whether the one-sided models of the BASIC track's glide path
should be unavailable to current or previously participating Track 1
ACOs and new ACOs identified as re-entering ACOs because of their ACO
participants' prior participation in a Track 1 ACO. Under this
alternative, ACOs that are experienced with Track 1, would be required
to enter the BASIC track's glide path under performance-based risk at
Level C, D or E. This alternative would more aggressively transition
ACOs along the glide path. This approach would recognize that some of
these ACOs may have already had the opportunity to participate under a
one-sided model for 6 performance years (or 7 performance years for
ACOs that elect to extend their agreement period for the 6-month
performance year from January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019), and
should already have been taking steps to prepare to enter performance-
based risk to continue their participation in the program under the
current requirements, and therefore should not be allowed to take
advantage of additional time under a one-sided model. For ACOs that
have participated in a single agreement period in Track 1, an approach
that requires transition to performance-based risk at the start of
their next agreement period would be more consistent with the proposed
redesign of participation options, under which ACOs would be allowed
only 2 years, or 2 years and 6 months in the case of July 1, 2019
starters, under the one-sided models of the BASIC track's glide path.
We sought comment on this alternative approach.
We proposed to specify these requirements in revisions to the
regulations under Sec. 425.600, which would be applicable for
determining participation options for agreement periods beginning on
July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years. We sought comment on these
proposals for determining an ACO's participation options by evaluating
the ACO legal entity's and ACO participants' experience or inexperience
with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives. In particular, we
welcomed commenters' input on our proposal to assess ACO participants'
experience with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives using a
40 percent threshold, and the alternative of employing a threshold
other than 40 percent, for example, 30 percent. We welcomed comments on
the proposed 5 performance year look back period for determining
whether an ACO is experienced or inexperienced with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives, and our consideration of a shorter look
back period, such as 3 performance years. We also welcomed comments on
our proposal to limit former Track 1 ACOs and new ACOs identified as
re-entering ACOs because more than 50 percent of their ACO participants
have recent prior experience in a Track 1 ACO to a single performance
year under the one-sided models of the BASIC track's glide path (two
performance years, in the case of an ACO starting its agreement period
under the BASIC track on July 1, 2019), and the alternative approach
that would preclude such ACOs from participating in one-sided models of
the BASIC track's glide path.
Comment: Some commenters supported the proposed approach to
differentiating participation options based on the experience or
inexperience of the ACO legal entity or its ACO participants.
Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed approach to
identifying ACOs experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives was too broad. One commenter explained that the approach
assumes transferability of experience across population and geography.
Another commenter asserts that the determination of experience based on
ACO participants rather than the ACO legal entity puts new ACOs at a
substantial disadvantage, particularly in markets where most providers
have been in an ACO. This commenter believes that experience of the ACO
participants does not necessarily equate to the ACO being experienced.
Several commenters expressed concern that a 40 percent threshold leaves
a majority of participants who would have no prior experience with the
accountable care model, and which need more time to familiarize
themselves with program requirements and the type of system reforms
inherent to participating in a population-based APM.
Some commenters expressed concern that the distinctions for
determining participation options, including between ACOs experienced
with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives or inexperienced
with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives add complexity to
the program. Several commenters expressed concern that ACOs would have
difficulty anticipating these determinations. One commenter explained
that the proposed complexities for determining ACO participation
options could make it hard for some groups to understand which track/
level to participate in and how long to remain in such track/level.
Furthermore, these complexities could disincentivize healthcare
providers from participating in the Shared Savings Program. Several
commenters recommended that CMS provide additional guidance on the
different participation parameters and options so that healthcare
providers have more information for their planning process. For example
this commenter suggested that CMS provide ACOs with detailed
descriptions of each definition used in determining participation
options (low revenue ACO/high revenue ACO, and experienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives/inexperienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives) well in advance of any
decision deadline. One commenter recommended using a policy that allows
ACOs to easily understand their options for participation ahead of
time. One commenter recommended CMS clarify the timelines and detailed
processes for how it will monitor, review and communicate to ACOs each
ACO's status with respect to their categorization.
One commenter suggested that the distinction between experienced
versus inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives should only be applied to determining whether and for how
long an ACO entity may participate in a one-sided model. This commenter
did not support ACO entities being required to participate in the
ENHANCED track due to experience with performance-based risk Medicare
ACO initiatives, preferring instead that all ACO entities be allowed to
participate in Level E of the BASIC track.
Commenters suggested a variety of alternative approaches including
the following:
One commenter suggested that CMS consider the
experience of both the ACO participant TINs and NPIs in making the
determination whether the ACO is experienced with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives. This commenter explained that a
straight percentage of TINs is more straightforward, however, the
[[Page 67898]]
commenter expressed that it could be unnecessarily limiting to ACOs
comprised of large, single TIN entities. This commenter suggested
that CMS should consider allowing ACOs to use a calculation based on
TINs or NPIs as appropriate for their composition.
One commenter suggested that CMS consider whether the
ACO previously managed a majority of the same beneficiary
population.
One commenter suggested that we allow greater
flexibility in choice of participation options to ``high
performing'' ACOs, and requiring ``low performers'' to either
quickly demonstrate success or be terminated.
A few commenters suggested CMS consider an ACO to be
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives if
the ACO completes an entire agreement period under a performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiative, explaining their concern about
cases where an ACO could be considered experienced with performance-
based risk models after only one year of participation in a
performance-based risk initiative.
One commenter suggested that CMS restrict the
definition of an experienced ACO to those with prior experience in
the Shared Savings Program. The commenter explained that the rules
of every individual APM are complex and can vary significantly from
model to model, so the definition of an ``experienced'' ACO in this
model should be limited to experience in the Shared Savings Program.
Response: We appreciate commenters' support for the proposal to
determine participation options for ACOs, including consideration of
whether an ACO is experienced or inexperienced with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives in combination with determining whether
the ACO is a low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO (as discussed in
section II.A.5.b. of this final rule).
We acknowledge that the approach to identifying participation
options for ACOs based on a combination of factors, including whether
an ACO is experienced or inexperienced with performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiatives, and whether an ACO is low revenue ACO versus
high revenue ACO, will add some complexity to program policies and
certain operational processes. However, we believe these policies
provide necessary safeguards to ensure that the amount of time an ACO
is allowed under one-sided models and lower levels of risk in the BASIC
track's glide path are not susceptible to gaming and to ensure ACOs
participate in financial models that are commensurate with their level
of experience in the Shared Savings Program and other Medicare ACO
initiatives. We believe it is important to hold ACOs and ACO
participants accountable for their prior experience in which they
become familiar with the accountable care models generally, as well as
with the Shared Savings Program requirements.
On the point raised by the commenter that the proposed approach
assumes transferability of experience across populations and geography,
we note there are commonalities and synergies between the Shared
Savings Program and other Medicare ACO initiatives, which include their
overall aims to improve quality of care and lower growth in
expenditures for a population of assigned Medicare FFS beneficiaries.
Given the similarity in the fundamental goals of Medicare ACO
initiatives, and including the Shared Savings Program and other value-
based initiatives, we believe there is a degree of transferability of
experience by ACO participants across these initiatives and to ACOs
from providers and suppliers experienced with other value-based payment
arrangements.
We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that new legal entities
are disadvantaged by the experience of their ACO participants, which
under the proposed approach is used to determine ACO participation
options. We believe ACOs make strategic decisions about which ACO
participants to recruit to maximize their potential gain from program
participation. We also note that under the program's shared governance
requirements at Sec. 425.106(c)(3), at least 75 percent control of the
ACO's governing body must be held by ACO participants. We believe that
new legal entities that meet the 40 percent threshold for experienced
with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives (based on the
recent prior experience of their ACO participants) will be
significantly informed by their ACO participants' experience.
Considering these factors, we continue to believe that ACOs that
include a significant number of ACO participants with recent prior
experience with Shared Savings Program requirements, or similar
requirements of other performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives,
should be placed in participation options that are reflective of the
sophistication of their organization.
The approach to distinguishing ACOs based on their experience or
inexperience with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives is
intended to achieve the commenter's suggestion to differentiate which
ACOs may be able to participate under a one-sided model or lower levels
of performance-based risk within the BASIC track's glide path. However,
as we explained in response to comments in section II.A.5.b of this
final rule, we decline to allow ACOs to remain in Level E of the BASIC
track indefinitely, and we are finalizing an approach (more generally)
that would limit the amount of time ACOs may remain in the BASIC track
prior to participating in the ENHANCED track.
We decline to adopt the commenters' suggestions for alternative
approaches to distinguishing participation options based on the ACO's
and ACO participants' level of experience with performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiatives. We believe that considering the prior
participation of ACO providers/suppliers would add a level of
complexity to the determination, and would also be inconsistent with
our use of ACO participant TINs in program operations. Also, as we
previously explained, ACOs' assigned populations vary year to year. We
therefore decline the commenter's suggestion to determine an ACO's
experience with the program based on whether the ACO managed the same
beneficiary population in the past. We decline to determine an ACO's
track of participation based on their prior financial or quality
performance in the program, as we believe that ACOs that project
performing well in the program are more likely to self-select to more
aggressively pursue participation under higher levels of risk and
potential reward. We also decline to exclude ACOs that did not complete
an entire agreement period during which the ACO was under a
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative, including certain
terminated ACOs and ACO participants with a single year of
participation, from the definition of experienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives. We believe this approach would
leave the program vulnerable to gaming through short-term
participation, termination and re-entry, which we believe could be
potentially destabilizing and disruptive to ACOs and healthcare markets
and the care delivered to Medicare FFS beneficiaries. In particular,
this would create a circumstance we are trying to protect against where
ACOs could participate under the BASIC track's glide path, terminate
prior to the conclusion of their 5-year agreement period and enter a
new agreement period under the glide path. We also decline to narrow
the proposed definitions for inexperienced and experienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives to focus only on
participation in the Shared Savings Program, as we believe ACOs' and
ACO participants' experience in other Medicare ACO initiatives
(including models with similar
[[Page 67899]]
requirements for accountability for the quality and cost of care for
Medicare FFS beneficiaries, and in some cases higher levels of risk and
potential reward) should be considered.
Further, we believe we have set forth clear rules on the approach
we will use to determine participation options under the redesign of
the Shared Savings Program based on a combination of factors. We
proposed and are finalizing (in this final rule) definitions of the
term ``low revenue ACO'' and ``high revenue ACO,'' ``inexperienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives'' and ``experienced
with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives,'' and
``performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative''. We will consider
the commenters' suggestion to include detailed descriptions of these
terms, and how these concepts will be used in determining participation
options, in material we provide to ACOs informing them of our
determination of the ACO's status with respect to each of these
criteria.
As we indicated in our response to comments requesting timely
feedback on CMS' determination of low revenue ACO versus high revenue
ACO status, in section II.A.5.b of this final rule, we note that we
anticipate providing timely feedback to ACOs throughout program
application cycles on whether the ACO is likely to be determined to be
inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives or
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, and a
low revenue ACO or high revenue ACO (among other factors), in order to
ensure ACOs have the information they need to make decisions about
program participation and to take action to align with program
requirements.
Comment: One commenter suggested that CMS should consider some
flexibility for ACOs identified as experienced with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives with small assigned populations (less
than 5,000) to permit their initial participation to include Levels C
or D of the BASIC track at the option of the ACO, rather than limiting
their participation options to either Level E of the BASIC track or the
ENHANCED track.
Response: Section 1899(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires ACOs to have a
minimum of 5,000 assigned beneficiaries in order to be eligible to
participate in Shared Savings Program. Consistent with this
requirement, the program's regulations provide that ACOs with fewer
than 5,000 assigned beneficiaries are ineligible for program
participation (Sec. 425.110(a)). As we discuss in section
II.A.6.b.(3). of this final rule, we are modifying our policies on
determining the MSR/MLR for ACOs participating in two-sided models that
have elected a fixed MSR/MLR whose populations fall below 5,000
assigned beneficiaries for performance years beginning on July 1, 2019
and in subsequent years. Under these final policies, we will apply a
variable MSR/MLR based on the size of the ACO's assigned population,
instead of the fixed MSR/MLR elected by the ACO prior to entering
performance-based risk. This will result in a relatively higher MSR/MLR
(greater than 3.9 percent), and therefore a higher threshold for the
ACO to exceed to be eligible for shared savings, and relatively higher
threshold to protect the ACO from liability for shared losses, which
could result from random variation.
We also decline to create a lower risk participation option for
ACOs with small populations, as suggested by the commenter. As
discussed in section II.A.5.b of this final rule, we are finalizing an
approach to distinguish participation options for ACOs (in part) using
a claims-based approach to identifying low revenue ACOs versus high
revenue ACOs as opposed to the alternatives we considered including
distinguishing ACOs based on the size of their assigned populations.
Comment: A few commenters suggested using a higher threshold for
determining whether an ACO is experienced with performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiatives based on the experience of its ACO
participants, so that more ACOs would meet the definition of
inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives;
such as a threshold of 50 percent or 60 percent instead of 40 percent
as proposed.
Some commenters suggested increasing the threshold from 40 percent
to 50 percent to align with the threshold proposed in the definition of
re-entering ACO, for identifying new ACOs composed of ACO participants
with previous experience in the same Shared Savings Program ACO in
recent years. One commenter explained that it is confusing to use
different percentages for determining ACO participants' experience with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives (40 percent) and ACO
participants with prior experience in the same Shared Savings Program
ACO under the proposed definition of re-entering ACO (50 percent).
One commenter recommended CMS define an ``experienced'' ACO as one
in which at least the majority of ACO participants participated in a
the same performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative, or in an ACO
that deferred its entry into a second Shared Savings Program agreement
period under a two-sided model, in any of the five most recent
performance years prior to the agreement start date. The commenter
stated that experience and performance of an ACO in one location has
little bearing on how the ACO might perform in another location,
explaining that market factors contribute significantly to ACO
performance. ACOs performing identically could achieve savings in one
market but not another.
As previously described in section II.A.5.c.4.(a) of this final
rule, some commenters suggested that CMS should monitor the impact of
the policies for identifying re-entering ACOs and ACOs that are
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, as
well as to create an appeals process for these determinations. They
recommended using a threshold of 50 percent for both of these
determinations (rather than using the proposed 40 percent threshold for
determining ACOs experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives) and also setting an additional criterion that would allow
an ACO determined to be a re-entering ACO or experienced performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives to appeal the determination if less
than 30 percent of its ACO participants were previously part of the
same legal entity.
Response: We continue to believe a threshold of 40 percent, for
assessing ACO participants' experience with performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiatives is the appropriate percentage. For one, it is
consistent with the percentage threshold used in determining whether an
ACO was sufficiently inexperienced with performance-based risk to
participate under the Track 1+ Model. Further, we believe that a
threshold of 40 percent will capture ACOs significantly composed of ACO
participants experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives. We believe increasing the threshold would allow
experienced ACOs to participate under relatively lower-risk options
when in fact their composition suggests their readiness for higher
levels for risk and potential reward. Further, we believe it is
necessary to apply a higher percentage in the definition of re-entering
ACOs, since we are identifying the majority (greater than 50 percent)
of ACO participants that participated in the same Shared Savings
Program ACO within the look back period (see section II.A.5.c.(4).(a).
of this final rule). The
[[Page 67900]]
purpose of the higher percentage threshold in the definition of re-
entering ACO is to identify a single ACO in which the majority of a new
legal entity's ACO participants previously participated in the Shared
Savings Program, for the purposes of identifying the agreement period
the re-entering ACO should be considered participating under for
program policies that phase-in over time. In contrast, the definition
of experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives
identifies ACOs that include a significant proportion of ACO
participants that have recent prior experience in two-sided risk
accountable care models, as part of an approach for identifying whether
the ACO is prepared to participate under relatively higher levels of
performance-based risk. Therefore we decline the commenters'
suggestions to use a higher threshold in the definitions of
inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives and
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives.
We continue to prefer our proposed approach to consider
participation of ACO participants cumulatively across multiple ACOs,
rather than in a particular ACO, during the 5-year lookback period,
because it would allow us to potentially identify more ACOs that may be
experienced with risk compared to the narrower options suggested by the
commenters. We therefore decline the commenters' suggestion that we
identify experienced ACOs as those in which at least the majority of
ACO participants participated in the same Medicare ACO (which would
include Innovation Center models). We also decline the commenters'
suggestion that we limit the determination of experienced ACOs based on
participation of ACO participants in the same Shared Savings Program
ACO (such as for consistency with the definition of re-entering ACO).
We believe these approaches would allow some ACOs with a significant
proportion of ACO participants experienced with performance-based risk
in different Medicare ACO initiatives to participate under options that
are designed for ACOs inexperienced with Medicare's accountable care
models.
We decline to adopt the commenters' recommendations to modify the
process for initially determining ACOs that are experienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives (as well as the
determination of re-entering ACOs as previously responded to in section
II.A.5.c.4.(a) of this final rule), to include an initial determination
for whether an ACO is experienced with performance-based risk Medicare
ACO initiatives, a secondary test to identify whether the ACO is
eligible to request an appeal, and finally an appeal process for the
final determination. We previously explained that we believe such an
approach would add complexity as well as uncertainty as ACOs would need
to request an appeal and await a final determination. Additionally, we
currently have an established process for ACOs to request
reconsiderations, as specified in subpart I of the program's
regulations.
More generally, we agree with commenters suggesting that we
evaluate and monitor the policy once implemented. Although we did not
specifically address this issue in the discussion in the August 2018
proposed rule regarding monitoring for changes during the agreement
period, we are concerned about the possibility that ACOs will enter the
BASIC track's glide path because they are determined to be
inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, and
over the course of their agreement period, dramatically change their
composition to take advantage of this lower-risk option when their new
composition suggests that they are prepared to take on more significant
performance-based risk. We intend to closely monitor ACO participant
list change requests for this issue.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the look back period for
determining threshold should be shortened from 5 years, but did not
indicate an alternative for how long of a look back period should be
used by CMS.
Response: We continue to believe a look back period of 5
performance years is an appropriate length to ensure we identify ACOs
with recent prior experience with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives. We described a number of considerations that led to our
proposal of a 5 performance year look back period in the definitions of
inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives and
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives in the
August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41828), as restated in this section of
this final rule, including that a 5 performance year look back period
could reduce the incentive for organizations to wait out the period in
an effort to re-form as a new legal entity with the same or very
similar composition of ACO participants for purposes of gaming program
policies.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about requiring ACOs
experienced with performance-based risk to take on higher levels of
two-sided risk under the proposed redesigned participation options. As
summarized in section II.A.5.b of this final rule, many commenters
suggested additional flexibility to allow high revenue ACOs experienced
with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives to continue
participation under lower levels of risk rather than be limited to
participation under the ENHANCED track. For example, commenters
suggested that ACOs should be permitted to remain in the BASIC track's
Level E (or an equivalent level of risk as the Track 1+ Model)
indefinitely without being forced to progress to the ENHANCED track.
One commenter suggested that former Track 3 ACOs should be given
the option to participate in the BASIC track as all other ACOs, among
other flexibilities in their participation options, since these ACOs
voluntarily entered the highest level of risk and reward in the Shared
Savings Program.
As an alternative, one commenter suggested that ACOs experienced
with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives should be allowed
the option of entering an agreement period under either Level D or
Level E of the BASIC track. This is contrary to the proposed approach
that would limit ACOs experienced with performance-based risk Medicare
ACO initiatives to either an agreement period under Level E of the
BASIC track (if a low revenue ACO), or the ENHANCED track.
Response: We continue to believe in the importance of progressing
ACOs to the highest level of risk and potential reward in the program
to drive the most meaningful change in providers' and suppliers'
behavior toward achieving the program's goals. Further, we continue to
believe that it is necessary to establish policies to safeguard against
experienced ACOs taking advantage of participation options under the
BASIC track's glide path intended for ACOs inexperienced with the
accountable care model in Medicare. Therefore we continue to believe in
the necessity of the proposed approach to require ACOs identified as
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives to
participate under the higher levels of risk and potential reward that
we are finalizing with this final rule, specifically Level E of the
BASIC track (if eligible) or the ENHANCED track.
Further we note that under the policies we are finalizing with this
final rule, an ACO that is identified as a low revenue ACO and
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
[[Page 67901]]
initiatives will be eligible to participate for up to two agreement
periods in Level E of the BASIC track. In response to the commenter's
concerns, we note that this policy applies to low revenue ACOs
identified as experienced with performance-based because of their prior
participation in Track 3 of the Shared Savings Program, as it would
also similarly apply to ACOs identified as experienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives because of their
participation in the other two-sided models specified in the definition
of performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives.
Comment: Some commenters point to concerns related to the inclusion
of the Track 1+ Model in the definition of performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiative. Some commenters expressed concern that under
the proposed approach, high revenue ACOs that transitioned to the Track
1+ Model within their current agreement period would be required to
renew under the ENHANCED track, whereas their counterparts that
remained under Track 1 would be eligible to enter a one-sided model of
the BASIC track's glide path. Some commenters view this approach as
disadvantageous or unreasonable to ACOs that voluntarily elected to
accelerate their transition to risk and switched to the Track 1+ Model.
Commenters explained that these Track 1+ Model ACOs would be required
to make a significant jump from the Track 1+ Model level of risk and
reward to the ENHANCED track level of risk and reward with only minimal
experience with in performance-based risk.
Some commenters pointed out that ACOs entering the Track 1+ Model
for their third performance year, performance year 2018, will not know
the final results of this year until after their new agreement period
begins under the proposed approach for a July 1, 2019 start date. This
is a significant concern since performance year 2018 is the first year
of two-sided risk for these ACOs, which are required to continue
participation in two-sided risk for their next agreement period.
Commenters addressing this issue typically recommended that all
current Track 1+ Model ACOs, independent of whether they are identified
by CMS as high revenue ACOs or low revenue ACOs, should be permitted to
continue their participation in the Shared Savings Program under Level
E of the BASIC track for an agreement period of at least 5 years, to
gain experience with performance-based risk.
One commenter, indicating confusion over the applicability of the
proposed policies in determining participation options, asked if ACOs
currently in the Track 1+ Model would be eligible to participate in the
BASIC track's glide path including being allowed one year of
participation under a one-sided model.
Response: We are persuaded by commenters' concerns that the
proposed policies could disrupt the progressive transition to risk by
Track 1 ACOs that took an initial and important step by entering the
Track 1+ Model within their current agreement period, with an
expectation that they might be able to continue in a similar level of
risk and reward for a second 3-year agreement period. Therefore, we are
finalizing a limited exception to allow ACOs that transitioned to the
Track 1+ Model within their current agreement period (therefore ACOs
with a first or second agreement period start date in 2016 or 2017 that
entered the Track 1+ Model in 2018), which are considered high revenue
ACOs, a one-time option to renew for a consecutive agreement period of
at least 5 years under Level E of the BASIC track. We are specifying
this participation option in a provision of the regulations text at
Sec. 425.600(d)(1)(ii)(B). We note that low revenue ACOs identified as
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives would
have an opportunity to participate for up to two agreement periods
under Level E of the BASIC track. To clarify in response to the
commenter's confusion, we note that former Track 1+ Model ACOs are
ineligible for the BASIC track's glide path because they would be
identified as experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives.
We do not believe it is necessary to extend this same exception to
ACOs that entered or renewed for a 3-year agreement period under the
Track 1+ Model with an agreement start date of January 1, 2018. Under
the original design of the Track 1+ Model, we would have allowed entry
into the model for an agreement period start date of 2018, 2019 and
2020 (as discussed in section II.F of this final rule). ACOs would not
have been able to renew their participation under the Model for a
second 3-year agreement period beginning January 1, 2021. Instead,
under the terms of the Track 1+ Model Participation Agreement and the
current Shared Savings Program regulations, these ACOs would have had
the option to continue their participation in the Shared Savings
Program in an agreement period under either Track 2 or Track 3. With
the changes to the program's participation options we are finalizing
with this final rule, ACOs that entered the Track 1+ Model for first or
second agreement period beginning on January 1, 2018 will have the
following options: Low revenue ACOs would be eligible to participate in
Level E of the BASIC track for up to two agreement periods; high
revenue ACO would be limited to participating in the ENHANCED track.
Comment: We received a few comments specifically addressing the
proposal to limit an ACO eligible for the BASIC track's glide path to
enter under Level B if the ACO has previous participation in Track 1.
Several commenters supported CMS' proposal to allow ACOs that
previously participated in Track 1 of the Shared Savings Program or new
ACOs, for which the majority of their ACO participants previously
participated in the same Track 1 ACO, that are eligible to enter the
BASIC track's glide path, to enter a new agreement period under either
Level B, C, D or E. Several commenters indicated the importance of
allowing these ACOs an opportunity to participate for at least one
performance year under a one-sided model before transitioning to
performance-based risk. One commenter explained that this approach
would give ACOs with experience in the program but without experience
in performance-based risk a reasonable amount of time in the redesigned
program structure before being required to move to performance-based
risk. The commenter preferred the proposed approach to the potentially
more aggressive approach CMS considered in which ACOs with experience
in Track 1 would be required to start at Level C of the BASIC track or
higher.
Several commenters suggested that all ACOs should be allowed to
start at Level A of the BASIC track. One commenter stated that early
adopters should not be penalized by forcing them into performance-based
risk while other new ACO entrants are allowed to remain in one-sided
models for several more years. One commenter seemed to suggest that the
proposed approach may differentiate whether ACOs may enter Level A or
Level B of the BASIC track's glide path depending on the length of time
they previously participated in Track 1.
Response: We are finalizing as proposed the approach for glide path
entry for former Track 1 ACOs and new ACOs that are identified as re-
entering ACOs because of their ACO participants' recent prior
participation in the same Track 1 ACO. These ACOs, if eligible to enter
the BASIC track's glide path, will be restricted to a single year of
participation under a one-sided model (Level B) before being
[[Page 67902]]
automatically transitioned to risk and reward under the glide path
(except for ACOs with an agreement period starting July 1, 2019, which
would be permitted to continue in Level B for a second performance year
starting January 1, 2020). We appreciate commenters' support for this
proposed approach which recognizes that ACOs with prior experience in
Track 1 may need additional time under a one-sided model to prepare for
performance-based risk, but are likely better prepared to more rapidly
progress to performance-based risk because of their experience in the
Shared Savings Program. Therefore, we decline the commenter's
suggestion that these ACOs be allowed to enter the BASIC track's glide
path at Level A.
Further, we believe the comments reflect the need to clarify that
this policy restricting entry into the BASIC track's glide path to
Level B applies consistently to any former Track 1 ACO and new ACO that
is identified as a re-entering ACO because of its ACO participants'
recent prior participation in the same Track 1 ACO, regardless of how
many performance years or agreement periods the ACO participated under
Track 1.
Comment: As described and addressed elsewhere in our summary of
comments in section II.A. of this final rule, many commenters expressed
concerns about the pace of transitioning ACOs to performance-based risk
under the proposed designed participation options. Some commenters
specifically expressed concern about the design of the BASIC track that
allows new, inexperienced ACOs only two performance years under a one-
sided model before requiring ACOs to enter performance-based risk. One
commenter explained that new ACOs need time to adjust to the program
requirements. One commenter encouraged CMS to prioritize the entrance
of new participants, and especially low revenue ACOs and ACOs
inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives,
into the Shared Savings Program as it implements the redesign of the
participation options.
Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed approach may
require too quick of a progression to higher levels of performance-
based risk by small, rural and physician-only ACOs. One commenter
expressed concern that ACOs that have actually achieved savings but do
not have the financial resources to go to risk would be forced out of
the program.
More generally, some commenters stated a critical component of
performance improvement lies in the ACO's ability to analyze the
performance data being provided to the ACO and make targeted
improvements based on this information. Under CMS' current proposal,
ACOs would have only one year of performance data before being required
to move to a performance-based risk model. One commenter explained that
the timing of benchmark notification, data receipt and shared savings
determinations under the program render such a short period of time
effectively useless to determine if the ACO's care coordination and
other redesigns are having the intended effect. The commenter explained
further that ACOs do not receive a preliminary benchmark or historical
data until after the performance year has begun. They also do not
receive a final shared savings determination until seven or eight
months after the conclusion of the performance year. As a result, the
commenter stated, ACOs are functionally blind to their financial
performance for the entire length of a performance year and into the
following year, which makes it difficult for ACOs to determine how to
invest any returns or how to alter their care delivery to achieve
savings and improve quality. The commenter believes the proposed
progression to performance-based risk within the BASIC track's glide
path forces ACOs to take on performance-based risk without much-needed
information, setting many ACOs up for failure.
To address these concerns, several commenters recommended that CMS
allow new, inexperienced ACOs three performance years in a one-sided
model, rather than two performance years, before requiring them to take
on performance-based risk.
Several commenters recommended that CMS allow new ACOs at least
four performance years in a one-sided model to provide the ACOs with
two to three years of performance data, to identify trends and
opportunities for transformation and improvement before they are moved
to a two-sided model. This commenter suggested, for example, CMS could
implement a policy allowing all new ACOs to remain in Level A of the
BASIC track for two performance years and Level B of the BASIC track
for an additional two performance years before requiring the ACO to
move to Level C in the fifth and final performance year of their 5-year
agreement. Alternatively, commenters suggest that CMS could allow new
ACOs to remain in a one-sided model for the duration of their first 5-
year agreement period, and then permit the ACO to begin their second 5-
year agreement period at Level C or Level D of the BASIC track where
they would participate for three performance years and progress to
Level E for the remaining two performance years.
Several commenters suggesting these alternative approaches to
allowing inexperienced ACOs additional time under a one-sided model of
the BASIC track's glide path recommended that CMS maintain the
opportunity for ACOs to elect to more rapidly enter higher levels of
risk and reward, as proposed (see section II.A.4.b. of this final
rule).
Response: We are persuaded by commenters that ACOs new to the
Shared Savings Program that are inexperienced with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives may need additional time under a one-
sided model to gain experience with program participation and to
prepare for the transition to performance-based risk. We believe the
need for this additional time in a one-sided model is particularly
acute among low revenue ACOs. As described in comments summarized
elsewhere in this final rule, for example, small, rural and physician-
only ACOs, which are more likely to be low revenue ACOs, may lack the
financial reserves needed to support establishment of a repayment
mechanism arrangement. These ACOs may be able to better accrue the
needed financial resources through earned shared savings in their
initial years of program participation (if they are eligible to share
in these savings).
Therefore we are finalizing a modification to our proposals to
allow an additional participation option in the BASIC track's glide
path for ACO legal entities without prior experience in the Shared
Savings Program (that is, new legal entities that are not identified as
a re-entering ACOs) that are identified as low revenue ACOs. To be
eligible for the BASIC track's glide path, these ACOs would have been
determined to be inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives based on an evaluation of their ACO legal entity and also
ACO participants (according to the 40 percent threshold). We will allow
these ACOs to participate under a one-sided model for up to three
performance years (or four performance years for ACOs entering an
agreement period beginning July 1, 2019). However, in exchange for this
additional year under a one-sided model, these ACOs would forfeit their
progression along the glide path to Level C and Level D and therefore
automatically advance to Level E for the remaining performance years of
their agreement period.
We note that this alternative participation option will not be
available to new ACOs that are identified as re-entering ACOs because
[[Page 67903]]
of their ACO participants' recent prior participation in the same Track
1 ACO.
With this alternative, we are allowing for an additional
participation option that more closely resembles the current
opportunity for ACOs to participate for a 3-year agreement period in a
one-sided model, and then transition to Level E of the BASIC track,
with the level of risk and potential reward currently available under
the popular Track 1+ Model. Therefore, we believe this policy (under
which ACOs forgo participation in Level C and Level D of the BASIC
track's glide path) is responsive to some commenters' suggestions for
such alternatives, and also supported by our early experience with the
Track 1+ Model. Among ACOs renewing for a second agreement period
beginning January 1, 2018, we observed that 5 Track 1 ACOs renewed
under the Track 1+ Model. However, as discussed elsewhere in this
section of this final rule, we strongly believe that ACOs need to make
the transition to two-sided risk within their 5-year agreement period
of the BASIC track's glide path, an approach which some commenters also
supported. Nevertheless, we are sensitive to commenters' concern about
the need for ACOs to have more performance information before
transitioning to higher levels of performance-based risk. Considering
these factors, in combination, we believe it would be an attractive
alternative that meets the objectives of our program's redesign to
offer the option for certain ACOs to elect to remain under a one-sided
model of the BASIC track's glide path for an additional performance
year prior to transitioning to Level E of the BASIC track for the
remaining years of their agreement period. As discussed in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (section V of this final rule), we believe
this alternative would be protective of the Trust Funds because it
could encourage program entry by the types of organizations that have
tended to be higher-performing (small, physician-only and rural ACOs),
and also encourage these ACOs to more aggressively pursue the program's
goals by moving to higher risk (under Level E) faster. We note also
that we are finalizing the option for eligible ACOs without previous
experience in the Shared Savings Program to participate under the BASIC
track's glide path, where they enter at Level A and are automatically
advanced through the remaining four levels of the glide path,
concluding at Level E. Therefore, this will remain a participation
option for organizations that prefer a more incremental progression to
increasing levels of two-sided risk.
In the new provision of the regulations at Sec. 425.600(a)(4) we
are specifying an exception to the policy that ACOs participating in
the BASIC track's glide path are automatically advanced to the next
level of the glide path at the start of each subsequent performance
year of the agreement period. This exception, applicable to an ACO
legal entity without prior experience in the Shared Savings Program
(that is, a new legal entity that is not identified as a re-entering
ACO) that is identified as a low revenue ACO (participating in the
BASIC track's glide path and therefore inexperienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives), allows for the following: (1) The
ACO elects to enter the BASIC track's glide path at Level A, and is
automatically advanced to Level B for performance year 2 (or
performance year 3 in the case of ACOs entering an agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019); (2) prior to the automatic advancement of
the ACO to Level C, the ACO may elect to remain in Level B for
performance year 3 (performance year 4 in the case of ACOs entering an
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019); (3) in the case of an ACO
that elects to remain in Level B for an additional performance year,
the ACO forgoes participation in Level C and Level D of the glide path
and is automatically advanced to Level E at the start of performance
year 4 (or performance year 5 in the case of ACOs entering an agreement
period beginning on July 1, 2019). We are making certain modifications
to Sec. 425.600 (such as to incorporate section headers) for clarity.
We are also specifying a provision related to this participation option
in the regulations text at Sec. 425.605(b)(2)(ii), on the timing of
the ACO's selection of its MSR/MLR before entering a two-sided model of
the BASIC track's glide path.
To determine if an ACO is eligible to make this election to remain
in Level B for another performance year, we would re-evaluate the ACO
to determine if it continues to meet the definition of a low revenue
ACO and the definition of an ACO that is inexperienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives.
Further, we believe this policy, to allow additional flexibility
for new legal entities, that are low revenue ACOs, and inexperienced
with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, to participate
for up to 3 performance years under a one-sided model of the BASIC
track's glide path before transitioning to Level E of the BASIC track,
in combination with other final policies within this final rule address
commenters' concerns and suggestions for a relatively gentler glide
path to two-sided risk for small, rural and physician-only ACOs (or
generally low revenue ACOs), and support continued participation of
these ACOs in the Shared Savings Program. We summarized these other
factors in section II.A.5.b.(2) of this final rule, and in brief these
include the following: (1) Increasing the threshold of ACO participant
revenue as a percentage of benchmark used in identifying low revenue
ACOs; (2) allowing for higher sharing rates in the BASIC track's glide
path; and (3) modifications to the approach for determining repayment
mechanism arrangement amounts to potentially reduce the burden of these
arrangements on lower-revenue ACOs participating in the ENHANCED track.
Under our final policies we will determine low revenue ACOs based
on a higher threshold percentage, 35 percent instead of 25 percent as
proposed (see section II.A.5.b of this final rule). Therefore, a
potentially greater number of ACOs may be eligible for this alternative
participation option.
We decline commenters' suggestions that certain ACOs be exempt from
transitioning to performance-based risk or higher levels of risk and
potential reward. As we explain elsewhere in this section of this final
rule, we believe the progression to performance-based risk is critical
to driving the most meaningful change in providers' and suppliers'
behavior toward achieving the program's goals, and that participation
in two-sided models, and ultimately the ENHANCED track, should be the
goal for all Shared Savings Program ACOs. More generally we believe the
previously described policy modifications will help ensure program
entry and continued participation by relatively risk-averse ACOs.
Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of deferred
renewal as described in the August 2018 proposed rule is not
sufficiently clear. The commenter suggested that CMS clarify the
definition of a ``deferred ACO'' so that it could be easily determined
by an ACO to avoid confusion.
Response: As described in section II.A.2 of this final rule we are
discontinuing the deferred renewal participation option, which was made
available to ACOs that participated under Track 1 for a first agreement
period beginning on either January 1, 2014 or January 1, 2015. Under
this policy, specified in Sec. 425.200(e), at the time of renewal for
a second agreement period, the ACO elected to extended its
[[Page 67904]]
initial agreement period under Track 1 for an additional year for a
total of 4 performance years, and thereby deferred entering in a second
agreement period under either Track 2 or Track 3. As we previously
described in section II.A.2 of this final rule, few ACO selected the
deferred renewal option.
Comment: Some commenters addressed generally the concern about
gaming participation options. One commenter stated support for CMS to
closely monitor ``gaming'' behavior and to take action when specific
gaming behavior is identified.
One commenter explained that shortening the time an ACO may remain
in a one-sided model and extending the agreement period to five years
(which affects how often benchmarks are rebased), increases the
incentives to participate in ``gaming''. The commenter suggested that
certain, well-defined precautionary measures may be warranted.
One commenter in general encouraged CMS to explore the ways bad
actors may use current or new structures to take advantage of
programmatic rules or beneficiaries.
Response: We appreciate commenters' concerns about the possibility
that ACOs may attempt to game program requirements to yield more
favorable participation options for their organization. We continue to
believe that the combination of policies we are establishing with this
final rule to ensure program integrity are protective of the Trust
Funds, as well as protective of beneficiaries by ensuring ACOs are held
accountable for their financial and quality performance. This includes:
Limiting more experienced ACOs to higher-risk participation options;
more rigorously screening for good standing among ACOs seeking to renew
their participation in the program or re-enter the program after
termination or expiration of their previous agreement; identifying ACOs
re-forming under new legal entities as re-entering ACOs if greater than
50 percent of their ACO participants have recent prior participation in
the same ACO in order to hold these ACO accountable for their ACO
participants' experience with the program; and holding ACOs in two-
sided models accountable for partial-year losses if either the ACO or
CMS terminates the agreement before the end of the performance year
(discussed in section II.A.6.d.(3) of this final rule).
Final Action: After consideration of public comments, we are
finalizing our proposal to specify requirements for evaluating an ACO's
eligibility for specific participation options for agreement periods
beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years, in a new provision
at Sec. 425.600(d), with the following modifications as discussed in
this section of this final rule: (1) Allow the option for an ACO legal
entity without prior experience in the Shared Savings Program (a new
legal entity that is not identified as a re-entering ACO) that is
identified as a low revenue ACO participating in the BASIC track's
glide path to elect an additional year of participation under a one-
sided model in exchange for transitioning more rapidly to Level E for
the remaining years of their agreement period; and (2) ensuring ACOs
that entered the Track 1+ Model within their current agreement period
have the opportunity to renew for a subsequent agreement period under
Level E of the BASIC track.
We are finalizing our proposal to add new definitions at Sec.
425.20 for ``Experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives'', ``Inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives'' and ``Performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative''
without modification.
We define ``performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative'' to
mean an initiative implemented by CMS that requires an ACO to
participate under a two-sided model during its agreement period. This
includes Track 2, Track 3 or the ENHANCED track, and the proposed BASIC
track (including Level A through Level E) of the Shared Savings
Program. This also included the following Innovation Center ACO Models
involving two-sided risk: The Pioneer ACO Model, Next Generation ACO
Model, the performance-based risk tracks of the CEC Model (including
the two-sided risk tracks for LDO ESCOs and non-LDO ESCOs), and the
Track 1+ Model. This definition also includes such other Medicare ACO
initiatives involving two-sided risk as may be specified by CMS.
We define ``experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives'' to mean an ACO that CMS determines meets either of the
following criteria:
(1) The ACO is the same legal entity as a current or previous ACO
that is participating in, or has participated in, a performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiative as defined under 425.20, or that deferred
its entry into a second Shared Savings Program agreement period under
Track 2 or Track 3 in accordance with Sec. 425.200(e).
(2) 40 percent or more of the ACO's ACO participants participated
in a performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative as defined under
Sec. 425.20, or in an ACO that deferred its entry into a second Shared
Savings Program agreement period under Track 2 or Track 3 in accordance
with Sec. 425.200(e), in any of the 5 most recent performance years
prior to the agreement start date.
We define ``inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives'' to mean an ACO that CMS determines meets all of the
following requirements:
(1) The ACO is a legal entity that has not participated in any
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative as defined under Sec.
425.20, and has not deferred its entry into a second Shared Savings
Program agreement period under Track 2 or Track 3 in accordance with
Sec. 425.200(e); and
(2) Less than 40 percent of the ACO's ACO participants participated
in a performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative as defined under
Sec. 425.20, or in an ACO that deferred its entry into a second Shared
Savings Program agreement period under Track 2 or Track 3 in accordance
with Sec. 425.200(e), in each of the 5 most recent performance years
prior to the agreement start date.
In summary, in combination with determining an whether ACOs are low
revenue ACOs versus high revenue ACOs as described in section II.A.5.b
of this final rule, we are finalizing the addition of a new paragraph
(d) under Sec. 425.600, to provide that CMS will identify ACOs as
inexperienced or experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives for purposes of determining an ACO's eligibility for
certain participation options, as follows (with certain exceptions, as
noted):
If an ACO is identified as a high revenue ACO, the
following options would apply:
++ If we determine the ACO is inexperienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, the ACO may enter the BASIC
track's glide path, or the ENHANCED track. With the exception of
ACOs that previously participated in Track 1 and new ACOs identified
as re-entering ACOs because of their ACO participants' prior
participation in a Track 1 ACO, an ACO may enter the BASIC track's
glide path at any level (Level A through Level E). Therefore,
eligible ACOs that are new to the program, identified as initial
applicants and not as re-entering ACOs, would have the flexibility
to enter the glide path at any one of the five levels. An ACO that
previously participated in Track 1 or a new ACO identified as a re-
entering ACO because more than 50 percent of its ACO participants
have recent prior experience in the same Track 1 ACO may enter the
glide path under either Level B, C, D or E.
++ If we determine the ACO is experienced with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives, the ACO may only enter the ENHANCED
track. However, an
[[Page 67905]]
ACO in a first or second agreement period beginning in 2016 or 2017
identified as experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives based on participation in the Track 1+ Model may renew
for a consecutive agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, or
January 1, 2020 (respectively), either under Level E of the BASIC
track, or the ENHANCED track.
If an ACO is identified as a low revenue ACO, the
following options would apply:
++ If we determine the ACO is inexperienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, the ACO may enter the BASIC
track's glide path, or the ENHANCED track. An ACO may enter the
BASIC track's glide path at any level (Level A through Level E). The
following exceptions apply:
--An ACO that previously participated in Track 1 or a new ACO
identified as a re-entering ACO because more than 50 percent of its
ACO participants have recent prior experience in the same Track 1
ACO may enter the glide path under either Level B, C, D or E.
--An eligible new legal entity (not identified as a re-entering
ACO), identified as a low revenue ACO and inexperienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives elects to enter the
BASIC track's glide path at Level A, and is automatically advanced
to Level B for performance year 2 (or performance year 3 in the case
of ACOs entering an agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019).
Prior to the automatic advancement of the ACO to Level C, the ACO
may elect to remain in Level B for performance year 3 (performance
year 4 in the case of ACOs entering an agreement period beginning on
July 1, 2019). In the case of an ACO that elects to remain in Level
B for an additional performance year, the ACO is automatically
advanced to Level E at the start of performance year 4 (or
performance year 5 in the case of ACOs entering an agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019).
++ If we determine the ACO is experienced with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives, the ACO may enter Level E of the
BASIC track (highest level of risk and potential reward) or the
ENHANCED track. As discussed in section II.A.5.b. of this final
rule, low revenue ACOs are limited to two agreement periods of
participation under the BASIC track.
(c) Applicability of Policies That Phase-In
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41829 through 41832), we
explained that we would consider an ACO's experience with the program
or other performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives in determining
which agreement period an ACO should be considered to be entering for
purposes of applying policies that phase-in over the course of the
ACO's first agreement period and subsequent agreement periods: (1) The
weights applied to benchmark year expenditures (equal weighting in
second or subsequent agreement periods instead of weighting the 3
benchmark years (BYs) at 10 percent (BY1), 30 percent (BY2), and 60
percent (BY3)); (2) the weights used in calculating the regional
adjustment to an ACO's historical benchmark, which phase in over
multiple agreement periods; and (3) the quality performance standard,
which phases in from complete and accurate reporting of all quality
measures in the first performance year of an ACO's first agreement
period to pay-for-performance over the remaining years of the ACO's
first agreement period, and ACOs continue to be assessed on performance
in all subsequent performance years under the program (including
subsequent agreement periods). We noted that for purposes of this
discussion, we considered agreement periods to be sequential and
consecutive. For instance, after an ACO participates in its first
agreement period, the ACO would enter a second agreement period,
followed by a third agreement period, and so on.
We proposed to specify under Sec. 425.600(f)(1) that an ACO
entering the program for the first time (an initial entrant) would be
considered to be entering a first agreement period in the Shared
Savings Program for purposes of applying program requirements that
phase-in over time, regardless of its experience with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives. Under this approach, in determining the
ACO's historical benchmark, we would weight the benchmark year
expenditures as follows: 10 Percent (BY1), 30 percent (BY2), and 60
percent (BY3). We explained that under the proposed approach to
applying factors based on regional FFS expenditures beginning with an
ACO's first agreement period, we would apply a weight of either 25
percent or 35 percent in determining the regional adjustment amount
depending on whether the ACO is higher or lower spending compared to
its regional service area. (As described in section II.D. of this final
rule, we are modifying our proposed phase-in of the weights used in
calculating the regional adjustment. Under the policies we are adopting
in this final rule, we would apply a weight of either 15 percent or 35
percent in determining the regional adjustment amount for an ACO in its
first agreement period.) Further, under Sec. 425.502, an initial
entrant would be required to completely and accurately report all
quality measures to meet the quality performance standard (referred to
as pay-for-reporting) in the first performance year of its first
agreement period, and for subsequent years of the ACO's first agreement
period the pay-for-performance quality performance standard would
phase-in.
We proposed to divide re-entering ACOs into three categories in
order to determine which agreement period an ACO will be considered to
be entering for purposes of applying program requirements that phase-in
over time, and to specify this policy at Sec. 425.600(f)(2). For an
ACO whose participation agreement expired without having been renewed,
we proposed the ACO would re-enter the program under the next
consecutive agreement period. For example, if an ACO completed its
first agreement period and did not renew, upon re-entering the program,
the ACO would participate in its second agreement period.
For an ACO whose participation agreement was terminated under Sec.
425.218 or Sec. 425.220, we proposed the ACO re-entering the program
would be treated as if it is starting over in the same agreement period
in which it was participating at the time of termination, beginning
with the first performance year of the new agreement period. For
instance, if an ACO terminated at any time during its second agreement
period, the ACO would be considered participating in a second agreement
period upon re-entering the program, beginning with the first
performance year of their new agreement period. Alternatively, we
considered determining which performance year a terminated ACO should
re-enter within the new agreement period, in relation to the amount of
time the ACO participated during its most recent prior agreement
period. For example, under this approach, an ACO that terminated its
participation in the program in the third performance year of an
agreement period would be treated as re-entering the program in
performance year three of the new agreement period. However, we noted
that this alternative approach could be complicated given the proposed
transition from 3-year agreements to agreement periods of at least 5
years.
For a new ACO identified as a re-entering ACO because greater than
50 percent of its ACO participants have recent prior participation in
the same ACO, we would consider the prior participation of the ACO in
which the majority of the ACO participants in the new ACO were
participating in order to determine the agreement period in which the
new ACO would be considered to be entering the program. That is, we
would determine the applicability of program policies to the new ACO
based on the number of agreement periods the other entity participated
in the program. If the
[[Page 67906]]
participation agreement of the other ACO was terminated or expired, the
previously described rules for re-entering ACOs would also apply. For
example, if ACO A is identified as a re-entering ACO because more than
50 percent of its ACO participants previously participated in ACO B
during the relevant look back period, we would consider ACO B's prior
participation in the program. For instance, if ACO B terminated during
its second agreement period in the program, we would consider ACO A to
be entering a second agreement period in the program, beginning with
the first performance year of that agreement period. However, if the
other ACO is currently participating in the program, the new ACO would
be considered to be entering into the same agreement period in which
this other ACO is currently participating, beginning with the first
performance year of that agreement period. For example, if ACO A is
identified as a re-entering ACO because more than 50 percent of its ACO
participants previously participated in ACO C during the relevant look
back period, and ACO C is actively participating in its third agreement
period in the program, ACO A would be considered to be participating in
a third agreement period, beginning with the first performance year of
that agreement period.
We proposed to specify at Sec. 425.600(f)(3) that renewing ACOs
would be considered to be entering the next consecutive agreement
period for purposes of applying program requirements that phase-in over
time. This proposed approach would be consistent with current program
policies for ACOs whose participation agreements expire and that
immediately enter a new agreement period to continue their
participation in the program. For example, an ACO that entered its
first participation agreement on January 1, 2017, and concludes this
participation agreement on December 31, 2019, would renew to enter its
second agreement period beginning on January 1, 2020. Further, under
the proposed definition of ``Renewing ACO'', an ACO that terminates its
current participation agreement under Sec. 425.220 and immediately
enters a new agreement period to continue its participation in the
program would also be considered to be entering the next consecutive
agreement period. For example, an ACO that entered its first
participation agreement on January 1, 2018, and terminates its
agreement effective June 30, 2019, to enter a new participation
agreement beginning on July 1, 2019, would be considered to be a
renewing ACO that is renewing early to enter its second agreement
period beginning on July 1, 2019. This approach would ensure that an
ACO that terminates from a first agreement period and immediately
enters a new agreement period in the program could not take advantage
of program flexibilities aimed at ACOs that are completely new to the
Shared Savings Program, such as the pay-for-reporting quality
performance standard available to ACOs in their first performance year
of their first agreement period under the program. We would therefore
apply a consistent approach among renewing ACOs by placing these ACOs
in the next agreement period in sequential order.
This proposed approach would replace the current approach to
determining which agreement period an ACO would be considered to be
entering into, for a subset of ACOs, as specified in the provision at
Sec. 425.222(c), which we proposed to discontinue using. This proposed
approach would ensure that ACOs that are experienced with the program
or with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives are not
participating under policies designed for ACOs inexperienced with the
program's requirements or similar requirements under other Medicare ACO
initiatives, and also would help to preserve the intended phase-in of
requirements over time by taking into account ACOs' prior participation
in the program.
The proposed approach would help to ensure that ACOs that are new
to the program are distinguished from renewing ACOs and ACOs that are
re-entering the program, and would also ensure that program
requirements are applied in a manner that reflects ACOs' prior
participation in the program, which would limit the opportunity for
more experienced ACOs to seek to take advantage of program policies.
These policies protect against ACOs terminating or discontinuing their
participation, and potentially re-forming as a new legal entity, simply
to be able to apply to re-enter the program in a way that could allow
for the applicability of lower weights used in calculating the regional
adjustment to the benchmark or to avoid moving to performance-based
risk more quickly on the BASIC track's glide path or under the ENHANCED
track.
The proposed approach to determining ACO participation options and
the proposal to limit access the BASIC track's glide path to ACOs that
are inexperienced with performance-based risk, in combination with the
rebasing of ACO benchmarks at the start of each new agreement period,
mitigated our concerns regarding ACO gaming. We explained our belief
that the requirement that ACOs' benchmarks are rebased at the start of
each new agreement period, in combination with the proposed new
requirements governing ACO participation options, would be sufficiently
protective of the Trust Funds to guard against undesirable ACO gaming
behavior. Under our proposed policies for identifying ACOs that are
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, ACOs
that terminate from the BASIC track's glide path (for example) and seek
to re-enter the program, and renewing ACOs (including ACOs renewing
early for a new agreement period beginning July 1, 2019) that are
identified as experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives could only renew under Level E of the BASIC track (if an
otherwise eligible low revenue ACO) or the ENHANCED track. This
mitigated our concerns about ACOs re-forming and re-entering the
program, or serially terminating and immediately participating again as
a renewing ACO, since there would be consequences for the ACO's ability
to continue participation under lower-risk options that may help to
deter these practices.
We acknowledge that under our proposals regarding early renewals
(that is, our proposal that ACOs that terminate their current agreement
period and immediately enter a new agreement period without
interruption qualify as renewing ACOs), it would be possible for ACOs
to serially enter a participation agreement, terminate from it and
enter a new agreement period, to be considered entering the next
consecutive agreement period in order to more quickly take advantage of
the higher weights used in calculating the regional adjustment to the
benchmark. However, we noted that these ACOs' benchmarks would be
rebased, which would help to mitigate this concern. We sought comment
on possible approaches that would prevent ACOs from taking advantage of
participation options to delay or hasten the phase-in of higher weights
used in calculating the regional adjustment to the historical
benchmark, while still maintaining the flexibility for existing ACOs to
quickly move from a current 3-year agreement period to a new agreement
period under either the BASIC track or ENHANCED track.
Final Action: We received no comments on this proposal and
therefore are finalizing as proposed to specify the following policies
in Sec. 425.600(f). For agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019,
and in
[[Page 67907]]
subsequent years, CMS determines the agreement period an ACO is
entering for purposes of applying the following program requirements
that phase-in over multiple agreement periods: (i) The quality
performance standard as described in Sec. 425.502(a); (ii) the weight
used in calculating the regional adjustment to the ACO's historical
benchmark as described in Sec. 425.601(f); and (iii) the use of equal
weights to weight each benchmark year as specified in Sec. 425.601(e).
An ACO entering an initial agreement period is considered to be
entering a first agreement period in the Shared Savings Program. A
renewing ACO is considered to be entering the next consecutive
agreement period in the Shared Savings Program.
A re-entering ACO is considered to be entering a new agreement
period in the Shared Savings Program as follows: (i) An ACO whose
participation agreement expired without having been renewed re-enters
the program under the next consecutive agreement period in the Shared
Savings Program; (ii) an ACO whose participation agreement was
terminated under Sec. 425.218 or Sec. 425.220 re-enters the program
at the start of the same agreement period in which it was participating
at the time of termination from the Shared Savings Program, beginning
with the first performance year of that agreement period; or (iii) a
new ACO identified as a re-entering ACO enters the program in an
agreement period that is determined based on the prior participation of
the ACO in which the majority of the new ACO's participants were
participating. Regarding this third category of ACOs, if the
participation agreement of the other ACO was terminated or expired, the
previously described rules for re-entering ACOs would also apply.
However, if the other ACO is currently participating in the program,
the new ACO would be considered to be entering into the same agreement
period in which this other ACO is currently participating, beginning
with the first performance year of that agreement period.
As discussed in section II.D. of this final rule, we are
maintaining a phase-in for the regional adjustment weights for ACOs
with start dates in the program before July 1, 2019, according to the
structure similar to that established in the June 2016 final rule (for
example, we will continue to use regional factors for the first time in
resetting benchmarks for the third agreement period for 2012 and 2013
starters); however, we are making modifications to the weights used in
these calculations and the length of time over which the maximum weight
is phased in. Table 6 includes examples of the phase-in of the modified
regional adjustment weights based on agreement start date and applicant
type (initial entrant, renewing ACO, or re-entering ACO). This table
illustrates the weights that would be used in determining the regional
adjustment to the ACO's historical benchmark under this final rule to
differentiate initial entrants, renewing ACOs (including ACOs that
renew early), and re-entering ACOs for purposes of policies that phase-
in over time.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 67908]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.007
[[Page 67909]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.008
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
(d) Condensed Shared Savings Program Application
In developing the proposals to redesign the Shared Savings
Program's participation options, we also revisited our current policy
that allows certain organizations with experience in Medicare ACO
initiatives to use a condensed application form to apply to the Shared
Savings Program (83 FR 41832 through 41833). Under Sec. 425.202(b), we
allow for use of a condensed Shared Savings Program application form by
organizations that participated in the PGP demonstration. Former
Pioneer Model ACOs may also use a condensed application form if
specified criteria are met (including that the applicant is the same
legal entity as the Pioneer ACO and the ACO is not applying to
participate in the one-sided model). For the background on this policy,
we refer readers to discussions in earlier rulemaking. (See 76 FR 67833
through 67834, and 80 FR 32725 through 32728.)
The PGP demonstration ran for 5 years from April 2005 through March
2010, and the PGP transition demonstration began in January 2011 and
concluded in December 2012.\15\ The Pioneer ACO Model began in 2012 and
concluded in December 2016.\16\ Many former PGP demonstration sites and
Pioneer ACOs have already transitioned to other Medicare ACO
initiatives including the Shared Savings Program and the Next
Generation ACO Model. Accordingly, we believed would no longer be
necessary to maintain the provision permitting these entities to use
condensed application forms. First, since establishing this policy, we
have modified the program's application to reduce burden on all
applicants. See 82 FR 53217 through 53222. Second, our proposed
approach for identifying ACOs experienced with performance-based risk
Medicare ACO initiatives for purposes of determining an ACO's
participation options would require former Pioneer Model ACOs to
participate under the higher levels of risk: Either the highest level
of risk and potential reward in the BASIC track (Level E), or the
ENHANCED track. This includes, for example, a former Pioneer ACO that
applies to the Shared Savings Program using the same legal entity, or
if 40 percent or more of the ACO participants in the ACO are determined
to be experienced with the Pioneer ACO Model or other two-sided model
Medicare ACO initiatives within the 5 performance year look back period
prior to the start date of the ACO's agreement period in the Shared
Savings Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Fact Sheet on Physician Group Practice Transition
Demonstration (August 2012), available at https://innovation.cms.gov/Files/Migrated-Medicare-Demonstration-x/PGP_TD_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
\16\ See Pioneer ACO Model web page, available at https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Pioneer-aco-model/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed approach to determining participation options,
we
[[Page 67910]]
would identify these experienced, former Pioneer Model ACOs entering
the program for the first time as participating in a first agreement
period for purposes of the applicability of the program policies that
phase-in over time. On the other hand, if an ACO terminated its
participation in the Shared Savings Program, entered the Next
Generation ACO Model, and then re-enters the Shared Savings Program,
under the proposed approach we would consider the ACO to be entering
either: (1) Its next consecutive agreement period in the Shared Savings
Program, if the ACO had completed an agreement period in the program
before terminating its prior participation; or (2) the same agreement
period in which it was participating at the time of program
termination. We noted that commenters in earlier rulemaking suggested
we apply the benchmark rebasing methodology that incorporates factors
based on regional FFS expenditures to former Pioneer ACOs and Next
Generation ACOs entering their first agreement period under the Shared
Savings Program (see 81 FR 37990). We believed that our proposal to
apply factors based on regional FFS expenditures to ACOs' benchmarks in
their first agreement periods (see discussion in section II.D. of this
final rule) would address these stakeholder concerns.
However, we also considered an alternative approach that would
allow ACOs formerly participating in these Medicare ACO models to be
considered to be entering a second agreement period for the purpose of
applying policies that phase-in over time. We declined to propose this
approach at this time, because ACOs entering the Shared Savings Program
after participation in another Medicare ACO initiative may need time to
gain experience with program's policies. Therefore, we preferred the
proposed approach that would allow ACOs new to the Shared Savings
Program to gain experience with the program's requirements, by entering
the program in a first agreement period.
Therefore, we proposed to amend Sec. 425.202(b) to discontinue the
option for certain applicants to use a condensed application when
applying to participate in the Shared Savings Program for agreement
periods beginning on July 1, 2019 and in subsequent years.
We sought comment on the proposals described in this section and
the alternatives considered.
Final Action: We received no comments on this proposal and
therefore are finalizing as proposed to amend Sec. 425.202(b) to
discontinue the option for certain applicants to use a condensed
application when applying to participate in the Shared Savings Program
for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019 and in subsequent
years.
More generally, the participation options available to ACOs based
on the policies finalized in this section are summarized in Table 7
(low revenue ACOs) and Table 8 (high revenue ACOs).
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 67911]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.009
[[Page 67912]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.010
[[Page 67913]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.011
[[Page 67914]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.012
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
d. Monitoring for Financial Performance
(1) Background
We provided background on our proposals for monitoring financial
performance in section II.A.5.d.(1) of the August 2018 proposed rule
(83 FR 41834 through 41835). We explained that the program regulations
at Sec. 425.316 enable us to monitor the performance of ACOs. In
particular, Sec. 425.316 authorizes monitoring for performance related
to two statutory provisions regarding ACO performance: Avoidance of at-
risk beneficiaries (section 1899(d)(3) of the Act) and failure to meet
the quality performance standard (section 1899(d)(4) of the Act). If we
discover that an ACO has engaged in the avoidance of at-risk
beneficiaries or has failed to meet the quality performance standard,
we can impose remedial action or terminate the ACO (see Sec.
425.316(b) and (c)).
In monitoring the performance of ACOs, we can analyze certain
financial data (see Sec. 425.316(a)(2)(i)), but the regulations do not
specifically authorize termination or remedial action for poor
financial performance. Similarly, there are no provisions that
specifically authorize non-renewal of a participation agreement for
poor financial performance, although we had proposed issuing such
provisions in prior rules.
In the December 2014 proposed rule (79 FR 72802 through 72806), we
proposed to allow Track 1 ACOs to renew their participation in the
program for a second agreement period in Track 1 if in at least one of
the first 2 performance years of the previous agreement period they did
not generate losses in excess of their negative MSR, among other
criteria. We refer readers to the June 2015 final rule for a detailed
discussion of the proposal and related comments (80 FR 32764 through
32767). Ultimately, we did not adopt a financial performance criterion
to determine the eligibility of ACOs to continue in Track 1 in the June
2015 final rule. Although some commenters supported an approach for
evaluating an ACO's financial performance for determining its
eligibility to remain in a one-sided model, many commenters expressed
opposition, citing concerns that this approach could be premature and
could disadvantage ACOs that need more time to implement their care
management strategies, and could discourage participation. At the time
of the June 2015 final rule, we were persuaded by commenters' concerns
that application of the additional proposed financial performance
criterion for continued participation in Track 1 was premature for ACOs
that initially struggled to demonstrate cost savings in their first
years in the program. Instead, we explained our belief that our
authority to monitor ACOs (Sec. 425.316) allows us to take action to
address ACOs that are outliers on financial performance by placing
poorly performing ACOs on a special monitoring plan. Furthermore, if
our monitoring reveals that an ACO is out of compliance with any of the
requirements of the Shared Savings Program, we may request a corrective
action plan and, if the required corrective action plan is not
submitted or is not satisfactorily implemented, we may terminate the
ACO's participation in the program (80 FR 32765).
[[Page 67915]]
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we explained that based on our
additional experience with monitoring ACO financial performance, the
current regulations are insufficient to address recurrent poor
financial performance, particularly for ACOs that may be otherwise in
compliance with program requirements. Consequently, some ACOs may not
have sufficient incentive to remain accountable for the expenditures of
their assigned beneficiaries. This may leave the program, the Trust
Funds, and Medicare FFS beneficiaries vulnerable to organizations that
may be participating in the program for reasons other than meeting the
program's goals.
As we stated in the August 2018 proposed rule, we believe that a
financial performance requirement is necessary to ensure that the
program promotes accountability for the cost of the care furnished to
an ACO's assigned patient population, as contemplated by section
1899(b)(2)(A) of the Act. We explained that there is an inherent
financial performance requirement that is embedded within the third
component of the program's three-part aim: (1) Better care for
individuals; (2) better health for populations; and (3) lower growth in
Medicare Parts A and B expenditures. Therefore, just as poor quality
performance can subject an ACO to remedial action or termination, an
ACO's failure to lower growth in Medicare FFS expenditures should be
the basis for CMS to take pre-termination actions under Sec. 425.216,
including a request for corrective action by the ACO, or termination of
the ACO's participation agreement under Sec. 425.218.
(2) Proposed Revisions
We proposed to modify Sec. 425.316 to add a provision for
monitoring ACO financial performance. Specifically, we proposed to
monitor for whether the expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiary
population are ``negative outside corridor,'' meaning that the
expenditures for assigned beneficiaries exceed the ACO's updated
benchmark by an amount equal to or exceeding either the ACO's negative
MSR under a one-sided model, or the ACO's MLR under a two-sided
model.\17\ If the ACO is negative outside corridor for a performance
year, we proposed that we may take any of the pre-termination actions
set forth in Sec. 425.216. If the ACO is negative outside corridor for
another performance year of the ACO's agreement period, we proposed
that we may immediately or with advance notice terminate the ACO's
participation agreement under Sec. 425.218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For purposes of the August 2018 proposed rule and this
final rule, an ACO is considered to have generated shared savings
when its benchmark minus performance year expenditures are greater
than or equal to the MSR. An ACO is ``positive within corridor''
when its benchmark minus performance year expenditures are greater
than zero, but less than the MSR. An ACO is ``negative within
corridor'' when its benchmark minus performance year expenditures
are less than zero, but greater than the negative MSR for ACOs in a
one-sided model or the MLR for ACOs in a two-sided model. An ACO is
``negative outside corridor'' when its benchmark minus performance
year expenditures are less than or equal to the negative MSR for
ACOs in a one-sided model or the MLR for ACOs in a two-sided model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed that financial performance monitoring would be
applicable for performance years beginning in 2019 and subsequent
years. Specifically, we would apply this proposed approach for
monitoring financial performance results for performance years
beginning on January 1, 2019, and July 1, 2019, and for subsequent
performance years. We explained that financial and quality performance
results are typically made available to ACOs in the summer following
the conclusion of the calendar year performance year. For example, we
stated that the financial performance results for performance years
beginning on January 1, 2019 and July 1, 2019, would likely be
available for CMS review in the summer of 2020 and would be made
available to ACOs when that review is complete. The one-sided model
monitoring (relative to the ACO's negative MSR) would apply to ACOs in
Track 1 or the first 2 years of the BASIC track's glide path, and the
two-sided model monitoring (relative to the ACO's MLR) would apply to
ACOs under performance-based risk in the BASIC track (including the
glide path) and the ENHANCED track, as well as Track 2.
Generally, based on our experience, ACOs in two-sided models tend
to terminate their participation after sharing in losses for a single
year in Track 2 or Track 3. We have observed that a small, but not
insignificant, number of Track 1 ACOs are negative outside corridor in
their first 2 performance years in the program. Among 194 Track 1 ACOs
that renewed for a second agreement period under Track 1, 19 were
negative outside corridor in their first 2 performance years in their
first agreement period. This includes 14 of 127 Track 1 ACOs that
started their first agreement period in either 2012 or 2013 and renewed
for a second agreement period in Track 1 beginning January 1, 2016, as
well as 5 of 67 Track 1 ACOs that started their first agreement period
in 2014 and renewed for a second agreement period in Track 1 beginning
January 1, 2017. Moreover, the majority of these organizations have
thus far failed to achieve shared savings in subsequent performance
years. For example, of the 14 2012/2013 starters in Track 1 that were
negative outside corridor for the first 2 consecutive performance years
in their first agreement period, only 2 ACOs achieved shared savings in
their third performance year, while 10 were still negative outside
corridor and 2 were negative within corridor. All 14 ACOs entered a
second agreement period in Track 1 starting on January 1, 2016: In
performance year 2016, 5 generated shared savings, 4 were positive
within corridor, 4 were negative within corridor, and 1 was negative
outside corridor. While some of these ACOs appeared to show
improvement, this could be due to the rebasing of the ACOs' historical
benchmarks that occurred in 2016. Because the benchmark years for the
second agreement period correspond to the performance years of the
first agreement period, ACOs that had losses in their initial years are
likely to receive a higher rebased benchmark than those that shared
savings. We observed similar trends following the first 2 performance
years for ACOs that started their first agreement period in 2014 and
2015. Therefore, we explained that our experience does not suggest that
a large share of ACOs would be affected.
Alternatively, we considered an approach under which we would
monitor ACOs for generating any losses, beginning with first dollar
losses, including monitoring for ACOs that are negative inside corridor
and negative outside corridor. However, we preferred the proposed
approach because the corridor (MLR threshold above the benchmark)
protects ACOs against sharing losses that result from random variation.
In the August 2018 proposed rule, and as reiterated in this final
rule, we explained that ACOs that continue in the program despite poor
financial performance may provide little benefit to the Medicare
program while taking advantage of the potential benefits of program
participation, such as receipt of program data and the opportunity to
enter into certain contracting arrangements with ACO participants and
ACO providers/suppliers. The redesign of the program includes a number
of features that may encourage continued participation by poor
performing ACOs under performance-based risk: The relatively lower
levels of risk under the BASIC track, the additional features available
to eligible ACOs under performance-based risk
[[Page 67916]]
(the opportunity for physicians and other practitioners participating
in eligible two-sided model ACOs to furnish telehealth services under
section 1899(l) of the Act, availability of a SNF 3-day rule waiver,
and the ability to offer incentive payments to beneficiaries under a
CMS-approved beneficiary incentive program), and the opportunity to
participate in an Advanced APM for purposes of the Quality Payment
Program. Further we explained our concern that ACOs may seek to obtain
reinsurance to help offset their liability for shared losses as a way
of enabling their continued program participation while undermining the
program's goals. Although we considered prohibiting ACOs from obtaining
reinsurance to mitigate their performance-based risk, we believed that
such a requirement could be overly restrictive and that the proposed
financial monitoring approach would be effective in removing from the
program ACOs with a history of poor financial performance. We sought
comment on this issue, and on ACOs' use of reinsurance, including their
ability to obtain viable reinsurance products covering a Medicare FFS
population.
We sought comment on these proposals and related considerations.
Comment: Generally, a few commenters supported the concept of
removing from the program ACOs with poor performance results. Many
commenters expressed concerns about and opposed the proposal to monitor
ACOs for poor financial performance and potentially terminate ACOs with
2 performance years of significant losses (negative outside corridor).
Response: We appreciate commenters' support for the need to monitor
ACOs for patterns of poor financial performance and to permit CMS to
impose remedial action and possibly terminate an ACO for poor financial
performance. We summarize and address below the specific concerns of
commenters who opposed our proposal.
Comment: Some commenters explained that these provisions, if
implemented, would provide CMS with too much discretion to terminate
ACO participation in the program, and could further discourage ACOs
participating in the Shared Savings Program as this would create
additional uncertainty for participants and would also make it
difficult to establish agreements with other organizations. Several
commenters stated that the resulting loss of participation by ACOs
could be disruptive to beneficiaries and providers. One commenter
suggested that these disruptions would be harmful because termination
of ACOs from the Shared Savings Program would limit the reach of ACO
improvements in savings and quality and potentially slow progress in
transitioning to value-based care.
Response: In response to commenters' concerns about our potential
use of this new policy in an overly broad way, we note that we would
carefully consider the need to terminate an ACO for poor financial
performance given the potential consequences of this action for the
Shared Savings Program, the ACO, its ACO participants, ACO providers/
suppliers and beneficiaries, among others. Elsewhere in this section we
describe additional factors we may take into consideration in making
this determination, which we believe is responsive to the specific
concerns that commenters raised, which we describe elsewhere in this
section. Nonetheless, we believe the approach we proposed, and are
finalizing, offers CMS a means to address ACOs that may continue in the
program despite poor financial performance and as a result may provide
little or no benefit to the Medicare program while taking advantage of
the potential benefits of program participation, such as the ability to
benefit from waivers of certain federal rules and requirements, receipt
of program data and the opportunity to enter into certain contracting
arrangements with ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers, as well
as the opportunity for eligible clinicians in the ACO to qualify for
incentive payments under the Quality Payment Program as QPs. This
behavior is not protective of the Trust Funds and also suggests that an
ACO's approach may be ineffective at meeting the program's goals.
We agree that termination of an ACO's participation from the Shared
Savings Program can be potentially disruptive to ACO participants and
ACO providers/suppliers, and Medicare FFS beneficiaries. Under the
program's regulations, we require terminated ACOs to complete certain
close-out procedures, as specified in Sec. 425.221(a), which include
requirements that may mitigate the effects of termination on ACO
participants, ACO providers/suppliers, and Medicare beneficiaries.
Under the program's regulations, we require terminating ACOs to
implement close-out procedures in the form and manner and by a deadline
specified by CMS related to the following: (i) Notifying ACO
participants of termination; (ii) complying with the program's record
retention requirements; (iii) retention or destruction of CMS data
according to federal requirements; (iv) meeting Shared Savings Program
quality reporting requirements for a completed performance year which
has implications for ensuring that eligible clinicians meet the MIPS
requirements under the Quality Payment Program; and (v) directing
beneficiaries to contact their primary care providers if, for example,
termination of the ACO will result in discontinuation of certain care
processes.
We also note that Medicare FFS beneficiaries always retain their
freedom to choose the providers and suppliers from which they seek
care. The termination of an ACO would not prevent a beneficiary from
choosing to continue receiving care from a provider or supplier that
had been an ACO provider/supplier before the ACO's termination.
Comment: Some commenters believe CMS does not need to terminate
ACOs if all are forced to move to two-sided risk, viewing the proposed
approach as unnecessary. One commenter explained that CMS' proposal to
automatically advance ACOs to performance-based risk in the BASIC
track's glide path would protect against ACOs that generate losses
remaining in the Shared Savings Program just to take advantage of
waivers and other provisions. As those ACOs are required to take on
increasingly more risk, they would incur too many losses to remain in
the program indefinitely. Some commenters suggested that the
requirement for ACOs to participate under two-sided models will provide
ACOs with incentives to leave the program if they were not able to
generate savings. More generally, one commenter indicated that ACOs
performing poorly drop out of the program voluntarily so poor financial
performance is self-correcting.
Response: We agree that the requirement for ACOs to participate
under two-sided models within the redesign of the program established
in this final rule should drive ACOs to improved program performance.
We also agree that ACOs with poor financial performance, including ACOs
that owe shared losses, will tend to voluntarily terminate from the
program based on our experience to date with risk tracks. However, as
we described in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41835 through
41836), we remain concerned that some ACOs with poor financial
performance will choose to remain in the program even after they have
incurred shared losses. ACOs under two-sided models may find the
advantages of continued participation outweigh the amount of shared
losses owed. ACOs share in a portion of the losses, and lower levels of
two-sided
[[Page 67917]]
risk may potentially be available to ACOs under the BASIC track. Poor
performing ACOs may be encouraged to continue their participation
because of the additional features available to eligible ACOs under
performance-based risk, such as the opportunity for physicians and
other practitioners participating in eligible two-sided model ACOs to
furnish telehealth services under section 1899(l) of the Act, the
availability of a SNF 3-day rule waiver, and the ability to offer
incentive payments to beneficiaries under a CMS-approved beneficiary
incentive program. ACOs with shared losses may also seek to continue
their participation in Level E of the BASIC track or in the ENHANCED
track to participate in an Advanced APM for purposes of the Quality
Payment Program.
Comment: As an alternative, some commenters suggested focusing the
policy on ACOs with both poor financial performance and other program
integrity concerns, but did not specifically identify the types of
program integrity concerns that CMS should take into consideration.
Response: We appreciate commenters' suggestion that we consider
poor financial performance in combination with other program integrity
concerns regarding the ACO. We do not believe we should limit our
policy only to ACOs that have both financial performance and program
integrity issues. We believe that poor performance is directly
reflective of the ACO's ability to achieve the program's goals and that
an ACO with no program integrity issues should be removed from the
program if it is unable or unlikely to achieve the cost and quality
goals of the program. We note that the existence of program integrity
issues may already constitute separate grounds for termination.
Comment: As another alternative approach, one commenter suggested
that CMS should consider using a blended evaluation process, based on
both spend outside the corridor and high cost utilization. The
commenter explained that low revenue ACOs can demonstrate consistent
reductions in utilization of high spend services, such as in inpatient,
emergency room and SNF utilization, yet see the costs associated with
that utilization increase.
Response: We note that ACOs that are negative outside corridor tend
to have corresponding high utilization. ACOs provide a holistic
approach to lowering growth in Medicare FFS expenditures, and we have
observed that successful ACOs address spending and utilization across
the care continuum or in a majority of claim types. We therefore
decline to adjust our approach to monitor and terminate for poor
financial performance in certain utilization categories.
The commenter noted that its concern was specific to low revenue
ACOs' inability to control costs for inpatient, emergency room and SNF
services. Elsewhere in this final rule we have explained our
observation that low revenue ACOs tend to be more successful than high
revenue ACOs in achieving savings, which suggests that the
circumstances the commenter describes may not be a barrier to low
revenue ACOs' success in the program. We also note that during the
performance year we provide ACOs with program reports with expenditure
and utilization data which support ACOs' monitoring of their financial
performance trends, including by claims types, and may help ACOs
respond to developing trends.
Comment: One commenter suggested that CMS implement the financial
monitoring proposal for performance years beginning before January 1,
2019. Specifically, the commenter noted that CMS could use existing
performance data for ACOs that are currently participating in the
program.
Response: We decline to further modify our approach to adopt the
commenter's suggestion that we consider the performance of ACOs in
current agreement periods during performance years prior to the
applicability date of the policy we are finalizing.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that CMS modify the proposed
approach to allow ACOs additional years of poor performance before
termination. The commenters suggested that CMS revise the policy to
impose action after 3 or more performance years of poor financial
performance. Commenters offered a variety of explanations for why the
proposal does not give ACOs sufficient time to correct poor financial
performance and show positive financial results, including the
following.
Several commenters explained that ACOs will not have
sufficient time to make and implement adjustments over 2 performance
years due to the timing of financial reconciliation. Performance
data for the prior year is not available until the summer of the
current performance year. One commenter explained that this timing
poses challenges for ACOs to affect performance for the year
underway. One commenter suggested that CMS could assist ACOs in
achieving shared savings or in lowering costs by making program data
and results more transparent and timely so that ACOs can actively
monitor their performance in real time.
Several commenters suggested that new ACOs, and ACOs
that modify their ACO participant lists during the agreement period,
face challenges as a result of learning curves and a lack of
experience. According to these commenters, ACOs should be allowed
sufficient time to implement necessary population health, care
management, provider engagement, and data strategies to enhance
beneficiary care and contain costs. One commenter suggested that
ACOs need at least three years to develop the competencies for
success. One commenter explained its belief that no ACOs would want
to invest the millions of dollars required to set up and operate an
ACO if they could be terminated from the program just 24 months
later. This commenter suggested there would be sufficient risk to
participants under the proposed redesigned program, and that the
risk of being terminated this quickly could be too much for many
ACOs to bear.
Other commenters more generally indicated that ACOs
need additional time to show positive performance results,
explaining that the program's results show ACOs perform better over
time. One commenter, MedPAC, explained that if an ACO is improving
the efficiency of care delivery, eventually its shared savings will
outweigh its shared losses. Accordingly, one or two years of shared
losses cannot be seen as a definitive indicator of performance given
the small number of beneficiaries in most ACOs. Several commenters
expressed concern that the proposed approach to potentially
terminate ACOs after two years of poor financial performance, could
result in termination of ACOs that may otherwise go on to achieve
savings and make quality improvements for their patients if they are
allowed to remain in the program.
Response: We disagree with commenters' suggestions that we modify
our approach to consider three or more years of poor financial
performance prior to potential termination of an ACO from the program.
We believe that such an approach would effectively constrain the policy
to addressing ACOs with 3 consecutive years of poor financial
performance, since results for performance year 3 would not be
available until mid-way through performance year 4. If the 3 years of
poor financial performance were not consecutive, the policy would only
allow for limited scenarios in which we could remove poor performing
ACOs. For example, under a policy that provides that ACOs would be
terminated after 3 performance years of poor performance, if an ACO was
negative outside corridor for performance year 1 and performance year 2
and performance year 4, we would not pursue termination until mid-way
through performance year 5 (when the results for the performance year 4
become available). We believe such an approach could allow ACOs
[[Page 67918]]
with a pattern of poor performance to remain in the program similar to
how poorer performing ACOs persist in the program currently.
We disagree with the commenters' assertions that our proposal does
not give ACOs sufficient time to identify and correct poor financial
performance. ACOs have access to a variety of resources to assess their
expenditure and utilization trends on an ongoing basis and to make
adjustments over the course of the performance year. We provide ACOs
with quarterly and annual expenditure and utilization reports, among
other program reports (including historical benchmark reports, and
aggregate reports with demographic data on the ACO's assigned
beneficiary population) as well as tools that ACOs can use to track and
estimate their performance. We believe ACOs receive data in a timely
manner from CMS, including monthly beneficiary-identifiable claim and
claim line feed files with Parts A, B, and D data, and have the ability
to detect and respond to trends in a more timely fashion than
commenters suggested, including before CMS has made a determination of
poor financial performance.
We disagree with the commenter that suggested that two performance
years of shared losses is not a definitive indicator of poor
performance. We have observed that ACOs with shared losses have greater
difficulty in achieving shared savings within the same agreement
period. As we described in the proposed rule and have restated in this
final rule, our previous experience over a 5 performance year span
suggests that the majority of ACOs whose first 2 performance years are
negative outside corridor fail to achieve savings in subsequent years.
Therefore, we believe 2 consecutive years of poor financial performance
is a definitive indicator of the ACO's performance trends and
sufficient to warrant compliance actions that could include
termination. We acknowledge that our experience is based on 3-year
agreements (or in the case of the program's initial entrants, agreement
periods of 3 years and 9 months, or 3 years and 6 months, and four year
agreements in the case of the few ACOs approved to use the deferred
renewal option which we are discontinuing with this final rule) and
that we are finalizing an approach that implements 5-year agreements.
Therefore, we anticipate examining the effects of our financial
performance monitoring policy in the context of performance trends over
longer agreement periods. Further, as we state elsewhere in this
section of this final rule, we will also consider improvement in
performance in deciding whether to terminate an ACO for 2 years of poor
financial performance. This is especially relevant to ACOs that are
negative outside corridor in non-sequential performance years. If an
ACO shows a pattern of improving financial performance, or fluctuating
financial performance, it may be indicative of the ACO's ability to
demonstrate consistent positive performance results in future
performance years.
Based on our experience with implementing the program, we disagree
with the commenter's assertion that the proposed policy if finalized
will discourage ACOs from investing in program participation, out of
concern that the potential for return on investment to cover start-up
and operating costs is outweighed by the risk of being terminated for
non-compliance with program requirements. We acknowledge there is risk
to establishing and operating an ACO and believe that this financial
performance monitoring policy can provide an additional incentive for
ACOs to quickly improve their performance. Since the start of the
Shared Savings Program hundreds of ACOs have agreed to participate in
the program under the program's current policies under which CMS
monitors and takes compliance action, including termination, prior to
the conclusion of 3-year agreement periods for ACOs that fail to meet
program requirements. We note that we have terminated only a small
number of ACOs for failure to meet program requirements. Notably, as we
previously described in the background for this section, we terminate
ACOs for failure to meet the quality performance standard over 2
consecutive performance years according to Sec. 425.316(c). Therefore
we do not believe that ACOs will be discouraged from forming or
entering the program because of a financial performance monitoring
policy that also requires accountability for meeting the program's goal
of lowering growth in expenditures, and under which ACOs may be
terminated for poor performance after 2 performance years.
Comment: A few commenters suggested that the proposed policy should
be implemented only as a criterion for determining an ACO's eligibility
to renew its participation in or to re-enter the program. Several
commenters suggested that ACOs should be protected from possible
termination for poor financial performance for one full agreement
period. These commenters suggested that ACOs that generate losses
beyond their MLR by the end of their third performance year could be
required to submit and implement a corrective action plan for their
fourth performance year (of a 5-year agreement period). Then, as a
condition of being approved for a second or subsequent agreement
period, ACOs could be expected to meet quality standards and operate
within the risk corridor (not generate savings below the MLR).
Response: We decline to adopt the commenter's suggestions because,
given 5-year agreement periods, we believe it would be more protective
of the Trust Funds and Medicare FFS beneficiaries to allow CMS the
flexibility to more quickly remove from the Shared Savings Program ACOs
showing losses outside their corridor for two performance years. We
note that we are finalizing in section II.A.5.c.(5) of this final rule,
our proposal to consider an ACO's past financial performance in
determining whether to approve a renewing ACO's or re-entering ACO's
Shared Savings Program application.
Comment: Several commenters suggest that if an ACO performs poorly
in performance year 1, but performs well in performance year 2 (results
for which would be available in performance year 3), then the ACO
should be allowed to participate in performance year 4.
Response: The commenters may have misunderstood the proposal. Under
the proposed approach, we would not terminate such an ACO for a single
year of poor performance. We note that performance results are
typically made available to ACOs in the summer following the conclusion
of the calendar year performance year. In the commenters' example, the
soonest we could terminate the ACO would be after PY 3 results are
available, which would occur more than halfway through PY 4. Under our
proposal and this final rule, CMS retains discretion not to terminate
an ACO after the second year of poor financial performance. In the
commenters' example, depending on the circumstances, CMS could either
impose additional remedial action in PY 4 or terminate the ACO in PY 4
if the ACO was again negative outside corridor in PY 3. Under this
approach, the ACO may be allowed to complete PY 4, and if further
corrective action is taken the ACO may be allowed to continue its
participation in PY 5.
Comment: A few commenters suggested that CMS should not terminate
an ACO for poor financial performance without considering factors that
might affect an ACO's performance over its agreement period. One
commenter suggested that for ACOs that have achieved significant
success in the
[[Page 67919]]
past yet are struggling in the current performance year, CMS should not
impose termination without considering whether the ACO's poor
performance is due to factors such as changes in the assignment
methodology and risk adjustment of the patient population. Other
commenters suggested we consider the impact of changes to the ACO's
participant list and changes in program policies during the agreement
period.
Several commenters suggested that CMS consider evidence of
performance improvement over time before making a determination to
terminate an ACO, but did not provide specific suggestions on how CMS
should measure improvement.
Response: We note that according to Sec. 425.212 an ACO is subject
to all regulatory changes that become effective during the agreement
period, with the exception of the following program areas, unless
otherwise required by statute: (1) Eligibility requirements concerning
the structure and governance of ACOs; and (2) calculation of sharing
rate. We decline to create additional exceptions by not terminating
ACOs for poor financial performance based on policy changes that become
applicable within the ACO's agreement period. During an ACO's agreement
period, we adjust the ACO's historical benchmark to address changes in
assignment, such as a result of regulatory changes to the program's
assignment methodology, and changes to the ACO's ACO participant list.
These adjustments ensure that the ACO's historical benchmark
expenditures remain comparable to performance year expenditures.
Further, we note that our use of blended regional and national
expenditure growth rates in updating the ACO's historical benchmark, as
we are finalizing in section II.D. of this final rule, will help to
ensure that the ACO's updated benchmark reflects the broader effect of
changes to Medicare FFS payment policies that may be reflected in
performance year expenditures. Additionally, we believe the
applicability of the CMS-HCC risk adjustment methodology is not a
factor that needs to be considered because our risk adjustment
methodology annually renormalizes risk scores which helps to account
for year to year changes in the risk adjustment model.
Commenters did not provide specific suggestions on how we should
measure performance improvement, but we agree that performance
improvement could justify allowing an ACO to remain in the program
after two years of poor financial performance. If the performance years
in which the ACO is negative outside corridor are non-sequential, we
anticipate considering whether the ACO generated savings or losses in
the other performance years. For instance, we would be especially
concerned by a pattern where an ACO generated losses outside corridor
for non-sequential performance years and generated losses within
corridor during the alternate year(s) especially if they missed the MLR
by a small margin. This suggests a pattern of poor financial
performance and the absence of corrective action to significantly
improve performance to meet the program's goals. If the years in which
the ACO is negative outside corridor are non-sequential, and the ACO
showed a pattern of performance improvement, such as losses or savings
within their MSR/MLR corridor, or sharing savings (positive outside
corridor), during the alternate year(s), then we would consider this
impact and the ACO's ability to continue a pattern of improved
financial performance over time.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the lack of
predictability of the ACO's historical benchmark, noting that the
values can increase or decrease each performance year. One commenter
stated concern about the proposed approach to terminate ACOs if they
exceed their benchmarks because the commenter believes that the
program's benchmark methodology has been significantly flawed to date.
This commenter explained that the construct of the benchmark is complex
and many ACOs do not have the skill set or actuarial support to
analyze, review and assess the complexities of benchmarking. One
commenter stated that it cannot be determined that ACOs that fall
outside of their negative corridor, are, in fact, losing the Medicare
program money as benchmarks are not valid counterfactuals. One
commenter suggested that CMS consider a standard that looks at the
ACO's cost growth relative to national expenditure growth trends to
demonstrate that the ACO is an outlier requiring corrective action. For
example, the commenter suggested that CMS could monitor ACOs based on
whether the ACO's expenditure trend is substantially higher than the
national expenditure growth trend, such as 5 percentage points higher,
and take pre-termination action in those cases.
Response: ACO's historical benchmarks can fluctuate in value during
an agreement period because of adjustments for ACO participant list
changes, and because of annual risk adjustment and the benchmark
update. These policies ensure the continued comparability of the
historical benchmark to the ACO's performance year expenditures, for
accuracy in determining shared savings and shared losses. We provide
program reports, including preliminary and final historical benchmark
reports, as well as annual and quarterly aggregate program reports on
expenditure and utilization trends and demographic data on the ACO's
assigned population, to support ACOs' participation in the program. We
also educate ACOs on the use of quarterly program data to predict their
financial performance.
We disagree with the commenters who suggested that the program's
historical benchmark methodology has significant flaws. We continue to
believe that the ACO's historical benchmark is the most accurate
measure for determining ACO financial performance. We also believe that
the annual adjustment and update to the ACO's historical benchmark
improves the accuracy of the benchmark calculations. The annual risk
adjustment methodology adjusts the benchmark so that it is reflective
of the health status of the ACO's assigned population. The annual
update, as modified based on this final rule ensures that the benchmark
reflects trends in both regional and national Medicare FFS expenditure
growth with more weight on national trends for ACOs serving a larger
percentage of beneficiaries in their region. Therefore, we decline the
commenter's suggestion that we use an alternative approach to
determining financial performance (and identifying poor performers)
such as comparing the ACO's cost growth relative to national
expenditure growth trends.
Comment: Several commenters explained that an ACO with spending
that is slightly higher than its benchmark should not be subject to
remedial action or termination. The commenters described a number of
reasons why spending for a performance year could be a few percentage
points higher than a benchmark. For example, the beneficiary population
could experience a worse than usual flu season, the hospital wage index
in an ACO's area could increase relative to their benchmark years, the
ACO's participant TINs could have joined an Innovation Center
initiative that increases spending, or the ACO's eligible clinicians
could have earned a MIPS bonus, which CMS includes as ACO expenditures.
Response: We decline the commenters' suggestions to make exceptions
to our approach for monitoring and terminating ACOs for poor financial
performance by taking
[[Page 67920]]
into account various differences in expenditures and payment rates
among providers and suppliers. Along similar lines, in earlier
rulemaking, we have discussed our consideration of technical
adjustments to benchmark and performance year expenditures (see, for
example 80 FR 32796 through 32799). As explained in earlier rulemaking,
we continue to believe that making extensive adjustments to remove the
effect of all policy adjustments from benchmark and performance year
expenditures, or allowing for expenditure adjustments on a case-by-case
basis, would create an inaccurate and inconsistent picture of ACO
patient population spending and may limit innovations in ACOs' redesign
of care processes or cost reduction strategies.
Further, we believe that the modifications we are finalizing in
section II.D of this final rule, to apply factors based on regional FFS
expenditures in establishing, adjusting and updating the ACO's
historical benchmark beginning with an ACO's first agreement period
(for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent
years) mitigate some of the commenters' concerns. In earlier
rulemaking, we explained that by replacing the national average FFS
expenditure trend and flat dollar update with trends observed for
county level FFS assignable beneficiaries in each ACO's unique
assignment-weighted regional service area, benchmark calculations will
be better structured to account for exogenous trend factors particular
to each ACO's region and the pool of potentially assignable
beneficiaries therein (for example, higher trend due to a particularly
acute flu season or an unusually large area wage index adjustment or
change) (81 FR 38004). We believe that the revised approach to updating
the benchmark, by blending regional and national expenditure growth
rates, which we are finalizing in section II.D. of this final rule,
will continue to protect against these concerns. The weight on the
national component of the blended update factor is based on an ACO's
penetration in its regional service area and the weight on the regional
component is equal to one minus the national weight. Because most ACOs
are not highly penetrated in their regional service areas, we believe
that the blended update factor will still strongly reflect regional
trends for the majority of ACOs.
Comment: A few commenters suggested that CMS should take into
consideration the impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances
when monitoring ACOs for losses negative outside corridor and in taking
related pre-termination actions. For example, one commenter suggested
that ACOs that experienced an extreme and uncontrollable event during
their agreement period should be allowed a waiver and/or extension of
program requirements and/or deadlines when applicable. This commenter
explained that by not providing such an option, some ACOs may be
unfairly and prematurely terminated.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion that we take
into account the impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances
when monitoring and terminating ACOs for poor financial performance. We
decline at this time to adopt the commenter's suggestion to provide
ACOs affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances with a waiver
of or exceptions to program requirements we are finalizing to establish
policies to monitor and terminate ACOs for poor financial performance.
In the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59968 through 59979), we
finalized the extension of policies that we previously adopted for
addressing the impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances on
ACO financial and quality performance results for performance year 2017
to performance year 2018 and subsequent years. Specifically, these
policies address quality performance scoring for ACOs affected by
extreme and uncontrollable circumstances and also provide for a
reduction in the amount of shared losses owed by ACOs participating
under a two-sided model for performance years affected by extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances. We also explained our belief that under
the approach of using regional factors in establishing and updating the
benchmark, as described in section II.D of this final rule, it would
not be necessary to make an additional adjustment to ACOs' historical
benchmarks to account for expenditure variations related to extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances (83 FR 59979).
If we take pre-termination action against an ACO for poor financial
performance, the ACO would have the opportunity to explain whether and
how its financial performance was affected by extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances and how those circumstances may also have
affected its ability to take corrective action to improve its
performance. We note that the pre-termination actions we could take in
the case of poor financial performance are set forth in Sec. 425.216,
which include issuance of a warning letter or a request for a
corrective action plan. As described in Sec. 425.216(b), a corrective
action plan must address what actions the ACO will take to ensure that
the ACO, ACO participants, ACO providers/suppliers or other individuals
or entities performing functions or services related to the ACO's
activities or both correct any deficiencies and comply with all
applicable Shared Savings Program requirements. ACOs that are required
to submit a corrective action plan would have the opportunity to
explain to CMS the particular circumstances that impacted their prior
performance, and how they will improve their financial performance. For
instance, an ACO that was affected by extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances would have the opportunity to explain how these
circumstances may have impacted the ACO's assigned beneficiary
expenditures. This additional information may assist CMS in better
understanding the circumstances that led to the ACO's poor financial
performance and allow CMS to better determine appropriate pre-
termination options and evaluate the ACO's corrective actions. Nothing
in our regulations would prohibit an ACO from offering the same
information in response to a warning letter.
We will continue to monitor the impact of extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances on ACOs, particularly as we gain
experience with the disaster-relief policies we have finalized for
performance year 2017 and subsequent performance years. We will
consider whether any changes to our policy for monitoring and
terminating ACOs for poor financial performance may be necessary to
account for the effects of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances.
Any such changes would be made through notice and comment rulemaking.
Comment: Some commenters point out there are interactions between
the proposed approach for monitoring and terminating ACOs for poor
financial performance, and the policy for allowing ACOs in a two-sided
model to select their MSR/MLR threshold prior to entering performance-
based risk for the agreement period. These commenters expressed concern
that the proposed approach to monitoring and terminating ACOs for poor
financial performance could disproportionately affect ACOs that take on
greater risk by electing a lower MSR/MLR. According to some commenters,
CMS' proposed definition of negative outside corridor sets a very low
bar, especially for ACOs in downside financial risk models where the
ACO can select a MLR as low as 0 percent. Some commenters explained
[[Page 67921]]
that many ACOs view selection of the MSR/MLR in a two-sided model as a
significant incentive to move into a performance-based risk track, but
this proposal would create a double-edged sword whereby an ACO that
wants to take on greater accountability through a lower MLR would be
faced with the potential of being terminated from the program as a
result of spending that exceeds its MLR. One commenter suggested that
for ACOs in a two-sided model, CMS should use a variable MLR based on
the number of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries (as used to determine
the MSR under a one-sided model) for purposes of determining poor
financial performance.
Response: We acknowledge the commenters' concerns about the
interactions between the existing policy of permitting ACOs under two-
sided models to elect a symmetrical MSR/MLR and our proposals with
respect to monitoring and termination for poor financial performance.
As discussed in section II.A.6.b. of this final rule, ACOs under a one-
sided model are subject to a variable MSR based on their number of
assigned beneficiaries. ACOs in two-sided models may select a
symmetrical MSR/MLR from the following options: Zero percent MSR/MLR;
symmetrical MSR/MLR in a 0.5 percent increment between 0.5-2.0 percent;
symmetrical MSR/MLR that varies based on the ACO's number of assigned
beneficiaries (the same as the MSR that would apply in a one-sided
model, and the MLR is equal to the negative MSR). We established the
variable MSRs to provide a greater degree of protection from normal
variation in expenditures for smaller ACOs. For ACOs that enter an
agreement period under a two-sided model, this MSR/MLR selection is
made at the time of application. For ACOs participating in the BASIC
track's glide path, this election will be made during the application
cycle preceding their first performance year in a two-sided model,
generally during the calendar year before entry into risk. We believe
that ACOs electing their MSR/MLR recognize the implications of their
selection, including the potential that a low MSR/MLR will increase the
risk of owing shared losses, as they are agreeing to be held
accountable for the financial consequences of participation under this
level of risk and reward. As a result, we believe they would also
consider the potential impact that their selection may have upon their
eligibility to continue in the program in the future. Accordingly, we
decline the commenter's suggestion to apply a variable MSR/MLR based on
the size of the ACO's assigned population instead of the fixed MSR/MLR
selected by ACOs, in our approach to identifying ACOs with poor
financial performance.
We believe it is appropriate to use ACOs' actual financial
performance results in determining whether ACOs are negative outside
corridor and in monitoring and terminating ACOs for poor financial
performance. In calculating an ACO's financial performance results, we
use the MSR/MLR that is applicable to the ACO. For ACOs under a one-
sided model we apply a variable MSR based on the number of
beneficiaries assigned to the ACO. For ACOs under a two-sided model we
apply the ACO's selected MSR/MLR, which is either a symmetrical fixed
MSR/MLR between zero percent and 2 percent (in increments of 0.5
percent) or a symmetrical MSR/MLR that varies based on the number of
beneficiaries assigned to the ACO. In section II.A.6.b.(3) of this
final rule, we are finalizing an approach to modifying the MSR/MLR to
address small population sizes for ACOs participating in two-sided
models. Under this final policy, we will use a variable MSR/MLR when
performing shared savings and shared losses calculations if an ACO's
assigned beneficiary population falls below 5,000 for the performance
year, regardless of whether the ACO selected a fixed or variable MSR/
MLR. This approach will provide further protection from shared losses
for ACOs with small populations. However, we note that the ACOs to
which we would apply this policy would be considered out of compliance
with the program requirement to maintain a minimum of 5,000 assigned
beneficiaries.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that expanding CMS' authority
to terminate ACOs from the program based on financial performance
undermines the collaborative nature of this program and the positive
results that ACOs generate.
Response: We do not believe that establishing this regulatory
flexibility to help ensure the integrity of the program undermines our
commitment to maintaining a program that encourages and fosters the
success of ACOs that are committed to achieving the program's goals.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed approach
to monitoring and termination for poor financial performance could
disadvantage rural providers.
Response: We decline to make an exception for rural ACOs to the
policy we are finalizing to monitor and terminate ACOs for poor
financial performance. As we described in section II.A.5.b of this
final rule, we believe that rural ACOs would tend to be among low
revenue ACOs, which have demonstrated better financial performance in
the Shared Savings Program compared to ACOs that includes hospitals
(for example). Based on our experience with program performance results
we do not believe that rural ACOs, such as those whose beneficiaries
predominantly reside in non-metropolitan areas, would be
disproportionately affected by a policy that monitors and terminates
ACOs for poor financial performance, compared to ACOs whose
beneficiaries predominantly reside in metropolitan areas.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that CMS should create a
direct channel for ACOs to report suspected fraud and abuse. These
commenters stated that ACOs continuously monitor their expenditures.
The commenters explained that ACOs are also monitoring services
rendered by clinicians outside the ACO and keep an eye on
reimbursements completely removed from their own financial interests
other than to achieve shared savings. ACOs have a frontline ability and
financial incentive to identify and report suspicious activity, yet
ACOs have no direct access to CMS program integrity functions.
Response: The program has several program and regulatory safeguards
in place to encourage ACOs, ACO participants, and providers and
suppliers to monitor and report allegations relating to fraud, waste,
abuse, and overall program integrity. The Shared Savings Program makes
referrals to CMS' Center for Program integrity (CPI) and/or the Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) whenever an ACO, ACO participant, or
provider/supplier raises an allegation of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Anyone suspecting healthcare fraud, waste or abuse is encouraged to
report it to CMS or the OIG. The OIG Hotline accepts tips and
complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement in Department of Health and Human Services' programs (see
https://oig.hhs.gov/FRAUD/REPORT-FRAUD/INDEX.ASP for instructions).
Reporting methods are also specified by CMS' Center for Program
Integrity (see https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Components/CPI/CPIReportingFraud.html for instructions). Additionally, concerns may be
sent to the Shared Savings Program mailboxes, [email protected] for
inquiries from external parties
[[Page 67922]]
including non-ACO entities, and [email protected] for
inquiries from current Shared Savings Program ACOs, and we will refer
them to CPI and the OIG.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that CMS develop a process
that would allow an ACO to contest its termination for poor financial
performance on the grounds that it was due to extenuating
circumstances, or based on an error in CMS' calculations.
Response: The reconsideration review process is specified in
subpart I of the program regulations. We do not believe it is necessary
to establish a separate appeals process (as suggested by commenters)
for ACOs to contest termination based on poor financial performance. We
note that the imposition of pre-termination actions is not appealable.
Comment: One commenter suggested that CMS revisit the policy for
monitoring and evaluation related to financial performance in future
rulemaking as it becomes implemented and applicable to ACOs over time.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. As with other
program policies, we may revisit this approach in future rulemaking
based on lessons learned.
Comment: Some commenters responded to CMS' concern that ACOs may
seek to obtain reinsurance to help offset their liability for shared
losses as a way of enabling their continued program participation while
potentially undermining the program's goals.
Several commenters urged that CMS should allow ACOs taking on
performance-based risk to obtain and maintain reinsurance. They
explained that ACOs need additional methods to repay losses. According
to these commenters, reinsurance is an acceptable option for paying
back losses associated with taking on risk, and is not an issue of
``gaming'' the system. They explained that it is a prudent practice to
have stop loss coverage or reinsurance to address unexpected risk, and
this would support ACO participation in the ENHANCED track given the
higher level of potential downward risk in this track.
One commenter explained the importance of tools like reinsurance
for helping ACOs manage financial risk. The commenter explained that
shared losses is only one form of risk associated with beginning an
ACO, another being the business risk associated with the financial
investments in starting an ACO (including those that begin under a one-
sided model). Further, the commenter explained that providers must
consider their full book of business, not just Medicare FFS, when
determining the best way to protect against losses. The commenter
suggested that CMS not limit providers' ability to insure against the
closure of their practices.
Several commenters agreed with the discussion in the preamble where
we explained our belief that prohibiting ACOs from obtaining
reinsurance would be overly restrictive. One commenter found it
difficult to believe that prohibiting ACOs under two-sided models from
purchasing reinsurance would ultimately benefit participating ACOs and
the Medicare program. A few commenters believe that as more ACOs
participate under two-sided risk, more ACOs will seek reinsurance or
partnerships with health management firms to mitigate risk. Several
commenters indicated that the involvement of reinsurance and management
firms will also add to the administrative costs of the program, eroding
a key cost advantage of the ACO model over Medicare Advantage, and also
weakening upside incentives for ACOs because such firms take a cut of
savings.
Response: We appreciate commenters' consideration of our concerns
about ACOs' use of reinsurance to offset their liability for shared
losses as a way of enabling their continued program participation while
undermining the program's goals. At this time we are not establishing
new requirements to prohibit ACOs from obtaining reinsurance. As we
note in section II.A.6.c. of this final rule we have also declined
commenters' suggestions to reinstate reinsurance as a permissible form
of repayment mechanism arrangement. We may revisit these issues in
future rulemaking as we gain additional experience with program
policies, and particularly as more ACOs participate under two-sided
models, which we anticipate will be the result of this final rule.
Final Action: Based on our consideration of the comments we
received, we are finalizing our proposal with a modification to its
applicability date. We proposed to apply this approach to monitor
financial performance for performance years beginning in 2019, and in
subsequent years. We did not receive comments addressing the timing of
applicability of the proposed policy. Due to the timing of this final
rule, we believe it is appropriate to modify our proposal to finalize
the applicability of this approach to performance years beginning on
July 1, 2019, and in subsequent performance years.
We are modifying Sec. 425.316 to add paragraph (d) for monitoring
ACO financial performance as follows: For performance years beginning
on July 1, 2019 and subsequent performance years, CMS determines
whether the Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's
assigned beneficiaries for the performance year exceed the ACO's
updated benchmark by an amount equal to or exceeding either the ACO's
negative MSR under a one-sided model, or the ACO's MLR under a two-
sided model. If the Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the
ACO's assigned beneficiaries for the performance year exceed the ACO's
updated benchmark by an amount equal to or exceeding its negative MSR
or MLR, CMS may take any of the pre-termination actions set forth in
Sec. 425.216. If the Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the
ACO's assigned beneficiaries for the performance year exceed the ACO's
updated benchmark by an amount equal to or exceeding its negative MSR
or MLR for another performance year of the agreement period, CMS may
immediately or with advance notice terminate the ACO's participation
agreement under Sec. 425.218. As we described in our responses to
comments in this section of this final rule, we anticipate taking into
account certain relevant factors, such as an ACO's improvement over
time, before imposing remedial action or termination for poor financial
performance.
6. Requirements for ACO Participation in Two-Sided Models
a. Overview
In this section, we address requirements related to an ACO's
participation in performance-based risk. In the August 2018 proposed
rule, we proposed technical changes to the program's policies on
election of the MSR/MLR for ACOs in the BASIC track's glide path, and
to address the circumstance of ACOs in two-sided models that elected a
fixed MSR/MLR that have fewer than 5,000 assigned beneficiaries for a
performance year. We proposed changes to the repayment mechanism
requirements to update these policies to address the new participation
options included in this final rule, including the BASIC track's glide
path under which participating ACOs must transition from a one-sided
model to performance-based risk within a single agreement period. We
proposed to add a provision that could lower the required repayment
mechanism amount for BASIC track ACOs in Levels C, D, or E. In
addition, we proposed to add
[[Page 67923]]
provisions to permit recalculation of the estimated amount of the
repayment mechanism each performance year to account for changes in ACO
participant composition, to specify requirements on the duration of
repayment mechanism arrangements, to grant a renewing ACO (as defined
in proposed Sec. 425.20) the flexibility to maintain a single,
existing repayment mechanism arrangement to support its ability to
repay shared losses in the new agreement period so long as it is
sufficient to cover an increased repayment mechanism amount during the
new agreement period (if applicable), and to establish requirements
regarding the issuing institutions for a repayment mechanism
arrangement. We also proposed new policies to hold ACOs participating
in two-sided models accountable for sharing in losses when they
terminate, or CMS terminates, their agreement before the end of a
performance year, while also reducing the amount of advance notice
required for early termination.
b. Election of MSR/MLR by ACOs
(1) Background
As discussed in earlier rulemaking, the MSR and MLR protect against
an ACO earning shared savings or being liable for shared losses when
the change in expenditures represents normal, or random, variation
rather than an actual change in performance (see 76 FR 67927 through
67929; and 76 FR 67936 through 67937). The MSR and MLR are calculated
as a percentage of the ACO's updated historical benchmark (see
Sec. Sec. 425.604(b) and (c), 425.606(b), 425.610(b)).
In the June 2015 final rule, we finalized an approach to offer
Track 2 and Track 3 ACOs the opportunity to select the MSR/MLR that
will apply for the duration of the ACO's 3-year agreement period from
several symmetrical MSR/MLR options (see 80 FR 32769 through 32771, and
80 FR 32779 through 32780; Sec. Sec. 425.606(b)(1)(ii) and
425.610(b)(1)). We explained our belief that offering ACOs a choice of
MSR/MLR will encourage ACOs to move to two-sided risk, and that ACOs
are best positioned to determine the level of risk they are prepared to
accept. For instance, ACOs that are more hesitant to enter a
performance-based risk arrangement may choose a higher MSR/MLR, to have
the protection of a higher threshold before the ACO would become liable
to repay shared losses, thus mitigating downside risk, although the ACO
would in turn have a higher threshold to meet before being eligible to
receive shared savings. ACOs that are comfortable with a lower
threshold of protection from risk of shared losses may select a lower
MSR/MLR to benefit from a corresponding lower threshold for eligibility
for shared savings. We also explained our belief that applying the same
MSR/MLR methodology in both of the risk-based tracks reduces complexity
for CMS' operations and establishes more equal footing between the risk
models. ACOs applying to the Track 1+ Model were also allowed the same
choice of MSR/MLR to be applied for the duration of the ACO's agreement
period under the Model.
ACOs applying to a two-sided model (currently, Track 2, Track 3 or
the Track 1+ Model) may select from the following options:
Zero percent MSR/MLR.
Symmetrical MSR/MLR in a 0.5 percent increment between
0.5-2.0 percent.
Symmetrical MSR/MLR that varies based on the ACO's
number of assigned beneficiaries according to the methodology
established under the one-sided model under Sec. 425.604(b). The
MSR is the same as the MSR that would apply in the one-sided model,
and the MLR is equal to the negative MSR.
(2) Timing and Selection of MSR/MLR
In developing the policies for the August 2018 proposed rule, we
considered what MSR/MLR options should be available for the BASIC
track's glide path, as well as the timing of selection of the MSR/MLR
for ACOs entering the glide path under a one-sided model and
transitioning to a two-sided model during their agreement period under
the BASIC track.
We proposed that ACOs under the BASIC track would have the same
MSR/MLR options as are currently available to ACOs under one-sided and
two-sided models of the Shared Savings Program, as applicable to the
model under which the ACO is participating along the BASIC track's
glide path. We explained that we believe these thresholds remain
important to protect against savings and losses resulting from random
variation, although we described in section II.A.5.b.(3) of the
proposed rule our consideration of an alternate approach that would
lower the MSR for low revenue ACOs (83 FR 41819 through 41820).
Further, we noted that providing the same MSR/MLR options for BASIC
track ACOs under two-sided risk as ENHANCED track ACOs would be
consistent with our current policy for Track 2 and Track 3 that allows
ACOs to determine the level of risk they will accept while reducing
complexity for CMS' operations and establishing more equal footing
between the risk models.
Specifically, we proposed that ACOs in a one-sided model of the
BASIC track's glide path would have a variable MSR based on the ACO's
number of assigned beneficiaries. We proposed to apply the same
variable MSR methodology as is used under Sec. 425.604(b) for Track 1.
We proposed to specify this variable MSR methodology in a proposed new
section of the regulations at Sec. 425.605(b). We also proposed to
specify in Sec. 425.605(b) the MSR/MLR options for ACOs under two-
sided models of the BASIC track, consistent with the previously
described symmetrical MSR/MLR options currently available to ACOs in
two-sided models of the Shared Savings Program and the Track 1+ Model
(for example, as specified in Sec. 425.610(b)).
Because we proposed to discontinue Track 1, we believed it would be
necessary to update the provision governing the symmetrical MSR/MLR
options for the ENHANCED track at Sec. 425.610(b), which currently
references the variable MSR methodology under Track 1. We proposed to
revise Sec. 425.610(b)(1)(iii) to reference the requirements at Sec.
425.605(b)(1) for a variable MSR under the BASIC track's glide path
rather than the variable MSR under Track 1. Because we also proposed to
discontinue Track 2, concurrently with our proposal to discontinue
Track 1, we did not believe it would be necessary to change the
existing cross-reference in Sec. 425.606(b)(1)(ii)(C) to the variable
MSR methodology under Track 1.
As we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41837), we
continue to believe that an ACO should select its MSR/MLR before
assuming performance-based risk, and this selection should apply for
the duration of its agreement period under risk. We believe that a
policy that allows more frequent selection of the MSR/MLR within an
agreement period under two-sided risk (such as prior to the start of
each performance year) could leave the program vulnerable to gaming.
For example, ACOs could revise their MSR/MLR selections once they have
experience under performance-based risk in their current agreement
period to maximize shared savings or to avoid shared losses.
However, in light of our proposal to require ACOs to move between a
one-sided model (Level A or Level B) and a two-sided model (Level C, D,
or E) during an agreement period in the BASIC track's glide path, we
stated our belief that it would be appropriate to allow ACOs to make
their MSR/MLR selection during the application cycle preceding their
first performance year in
[[Page 67924]]
a two-sided model, generally during the calendar year before entry into
risk. ACOs that enter the BASIC track's glide path under a one-sided
model would still be inexperienced with performance-based risk, but
they will have the opportunity to gain experience with the program,
prior to making this selection. We noted that this approach would be
another means for BASIC ACOs in the glide path to control their level
of risk exposure.
Therefore, we proposed to include a policy in the proposed new
section of the regulations at Sec. 425.605(b)(2) to allow ACOs under
the BASIC track's glide path in Level A or Level B to choose the MSR/
MLR to be applied before the start of their first performance year in a
two-sided model. This selection would occur before the ACO enters Level
C, D or E of the BASIC track's glide path, depending on whether the ACO
is automatically transitioned to a two-sided model (Level C) or elects
to more quickly transition to a two-sided model within the glide path
(Level C, D, or E).
In section II.A.5.b.(3) of the proposed rule we also described and
sought comment on several approaches to allowing for potentially
greater access to shared savings for low revenue ACOs compared to high
revenue ACOs. We noted that such approaches would recognize the
performance trends of low revenue ACOs based on performance results and
the potential that low revenue ACOs would need additional capital, as a
means of encouraging their continued participation in the program. One
approach we considered would be to allow for a lower MSR during the
one-sided model years (Level A and B) for low revenue ACOs in the BASIC
track with at least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries for the performance
year. For example, we considered a policy under which we would apply a
MSR that is a fixed 1 percent. We also considered setting the MSR at a
fixed 2 percent, or effectively removing the threshold by setting the
MSR at zero percent. However, we would apply a variable MSR based on
the ACO's number of assigned beneficiaries in the event the ACO's
population falls below 5,000 assigned beneficiaries for the performance
year, consistent with our proposal in section II.A.6.b of the proposed
rule and as described below in section II.A.6.b.(3) of this final rule.
We noted that a lower MSR (such as a fixed 1 percent) would reduce
the threshold level of savings the ACO must generate to be eligible to
share in savings. This would give low revenue ACOs greater confidence
that they would be eligible to share in savings, once generated. We
noted that this may be especially important for small ACOs which
otherwise would have MSRs towards the higher end of the range (closer
to 3.9 percent, for an ACO with at least 5,000 beneficiaries) for years
in which the ACO participates under a one-sided model. However, we did
not believe that a lower MSR would be needed to encourage participation
by high revenue ACOs. For one, high revenue ACOs are likely to have
larger numbers of assigned beneficiaries and therefore more likely to
have lower MSRs (ranging from 3 percent to 2 percent, for ACOs with
10,000 or more assigned beneficiaries). Further, we believed that their
control over a significant percentage of total Medicare Parts A and B
FFS expenditures for their assigned beneficiaries may provide a
sufficient incentive for participation as they would have an
opportunity to generate significant savings.
In addition to allowing for a lower MSR for ACOs participating in a
one-sided model under the BASIC track, we also considered another
approach under which we would allow for a relatively higher final
sharing rate under the first four levels of the BASIC track's glide
path for low revenue ACOs. This approach is described further in
section II.A.3.b of this final rule.
Comment: Most commenters discussing the proposals related to timing
and selection of the MSR/MLR agreed with allowing ACOs in a two-sided
model to select their MLR/MSR, with close to half also explicitly
expressing support for the proposed timing of the selection. Commenters
frequently noted that they appreciated the flexibility these policies
would provide. A few commenters stated this flexibility was important
to ACOs that may want to set the MSR/MLR higher or lower depending on
how conservative or aggressive their goals are with respect to avoiding
shared losses or earning shared savings, respectively. One commenter
supported allowing ACOs to choose from a range of MSR values, noting
the importance of allowing organizations to assume levels of risk based
on their own business decisions. Another commenter noted that
continuing to allow ACOs in risk-bearing tracks to select their MSR/MLR
provides ACOs with flexibility and autonomy that is critical to
building confidence in accepting higher levels of risk. This commenter
noted that the symmetrical nature of these rates will also help to
protect the Medicare Trust Funds.
One commenter commended CMS for what they described as providing
the same options to ACOs in both one- and two-sided models. Another
commenter noted that as the program develops it may become more
apparent whether a fixed or variable MSR makes the most sense for CMS,
ACOs, and beneficiaries, but recommended that CMS extend the choice of
fixed and variable MSR/MLR options to all levels of the BASIC track,
stating their belief that offering ACOs choices from the start of their
participation in the program provides the best pathway for success.
Several commenters advocated for using a fixed MSR of 2 or 2.5 percent
for ACOs in one-sided models with at least 5,000 assigned
beneficiaries, with some noting that this approach could provide a
greater incentive for participation among low revenue ACOs and rural
ACOs. A few of these commenters also supported using a variable MSR for
ACOs in one-sided models that are below the 5,000 beneficiary
threshold.
One commenter asked that CMS reconsider its proposals related to
the MSR and MLR in order to ``lessen restrictions and remove barriers
to participation in risk sharing arrangements,'' but did not specify
which aspects of the MSR/MLR proposals they believed to be restrictive
or to create barriers.
Several commenters noted that they disagree with CMS' current
policy of requiring that an ACO's MSR/MLR selection apply for the
duration of its agreement period under risk, which would also apply to
ACOs in two-sided levels of the BASIC track under our proposal. Most of
these commenters recommended allowing ACOs to change their selection at
the start of each performance year. One commenter requested that ACOs
be permitted to re-select their MSR/MLR level in the event that CMS
modifies the financial conditions of a track during the agreement
period.
A few commenters noted that they disagreed with CMS' stated belief
that allowing for annual selections could leave the program vulnerable
to gaming. They believe instead that modifying this policy to permit
annual selections would allow ACOs to continue to advance in operating
under performance-based risk, grow competencies, and build
understanding of the benchmarking methodology, which they view as
essential to informing an ACO's MSR/MLR selection. They also noted that
the assigned beneficiary populations of ACOs, and their associated risk
profiles, can change significantly over time, affecting an ACO's
previous MSR/MLR selection. These commenters also mentioned that other
alternative payment models such as the Bundled
[[Page 67925]]
Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative allow their
participants to change their risk thresholds more frequently.
Response: We appreciate commenters' feedback on our proposals
around the timing for selection of the MSR/MLR for ACOs participating
in the proposed BASIC track. We agree with the commenters who noted
that our proposal to allow ACOs to select their MSR/MLR prior to moving
to a two-sided model within the glide path will provide flexibility for
ACOs that will be moving into two-sided risk arrangements in the BASIC
track, and we are finalizing this policy as proposed. We continue to
believe that offering a choice of MSR/MLR for ACOs participating in
two-sided models will encourage ACO participation in these models, and
that ACOs are best positioned to determine the level of risk they are
prepared to accept. We would like to clarify that our proposal did not
extend the choice of an MSR/MLR to ACOs that are participating in the
one-sided levels of the BASIC track; however, as we discuss elsewhere
in this section, we did consider certain other options for allowing for
a lower MSR for low revenue ACOs under a one-sided model. With regard
to ACOs participating under a one-sided model within the BASIC track,
we believe that the advantages afforded by a variable MSR that protects
the Medicare Trust Funds from shared savings payments that are due to
normal variation in expenditures, outweigh any suggested advantages of
providing the option for these ACOs to select a fixed rate MSR. Under
the policy that we are finalizing, ACOs participating in Levels A or B
of the BASIC track will have an MSR based on their number of assigned
beneficiaries and will have the opportunity to select their MSR/MLR
during the application cycle preceding their first performance year in
a two-sided model.
We did not propose to change the requirement that the MSR/MLR
selection apply for the duration of the agreement period under
performance-based risk for ACOs participating in Track 2 or the
ENHANCED track. For consistency, and because we still have concerns
that allowing for an annual selection could lead to gaming, we believe
that it is appropriate that this requirement extend to ACOs entering a
two-sided level in the BASIC track. We would also like to clarify that,
absent unusual circumstances, we would not seek to modify the financial
terms of an ACO's track during an agreement period. Any such change
could only be adopted through rulemaking and, per Sec. 425.212, any
regulatory changes to the sharing rate, unless required by statute, do
not apply to ACOs during an agreement period. We note, for example,
that ACOs currently participating in Tracks 1 and 2 will be allowed to
complete their existing agreement period under the financial conditions
of their current track, even though these tracks will no longer be
available as participation options for ACOs entering a new agreement
period on or after July 1, 2019, pursuant to this final rule.
Comment: A number of commenters supported a combination of a lower
MSR and higher sharing rates for low revenue ACOs participating in the
BASIC track and offered several different alternatives. Commenters
explained that combining a lower MSR and higher final sharing rate was
necessary to ensure there are sufficient and attainable incentives to
support ACOs' efforts to improve quality and lower cost, to provide
early returns on investments as well as predictability of savings and
the financial support ACOs need to ensure successful participation, and
to incentivize low revenue and physician[hyphen]led ACOs to participate
in the redesigned participation options.
Response: We appreciate the feedback provided by commenters on the
approaches we considered to increase incentives for low revenue ACOs
participating in the BASIC track. As discussed in section II.A.3.b. of
this final rule, we are finalizing a 40 percent sharing rate for all
one-sided model levels of the BASIC track's glide path and a 50 percent
sharing rate for two-sided model levels in the BASIC track's glide
path. Additionally, in section II.A.5.c of this final rule, we are
finalizing an exception that will permit new legal entities determined
to be low revenue ACOs that are inexperienced with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives to participate for 3 performance years
under a one-sided model within the BASIC track's glide path (or 4
performance years in the case of ACOs entering an agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019) prior to being automatically advanced to
Level E of the BASIC track for the remaining years of their agreement
period. As we believe these policies, which represent modifications of
our original proposals, will improve the incentives for participation
by low revenue ACOs, we decline to adopt a lower MSR for low revenue
ACOs participating in the one-sided model levels of the BASIC track at
this time. Furthermore, as we noted earlier in this section and have
discussed in prior rulemaking (see for example, 80 FR 32761), we
continue to believe that the use of a variable MSR for ACOs in one-
sided models is appropriate in order to protect the Trust Funds from
paying shared savings for savings that may result from random variation
rather than from care coordination and quality improvement by the ACO.
Final Action: After considering the comments received, we are
finalizing the policies governing the MSR/MLR for ACOs in the BASIC
track at Sec. 425.605(b), with a modification to include a new
paragraph at Sec. 425.605(b)(2)(ii)(D) to provide that ACOs that elect
the option to participate in a third year under a one-sided model based
on the policy we are finalizing in section II.A.5.c of this final rule
will select their MSR/MLR prior to transitioning to Level E. Under the
final policies, ACOs in a one-sided model of the BASIC track's glide
path will have a variable MSR based on the number of beneficiaries
assigned to the ACO. The variable MSR will be determined using the same
methodology that is currently used for Track 1. ACOs in a two-sided
model of the BASIC track will be able to choose among the MSR/MLR
options that are available to ACOs participating in Track 2 or the
ENHANCED track. ACOs participating under Level A or B of the BASIC
track's glide path will choose the MSR/MLR to be applied before the
start of their first performance year in a two-sided model. This
selection will occur before the ACO enters Level C, D or E of the BASIC
track's glide path, depending on whether the ACO is automatically
transitioned to a two-sided model (Level C or E) or elects to more
quickly transition to a two-sided model within the glide path (Level C,
D, or E), and will be in effect for the duration of the agreement
period that the ACO is under two-sided risk. We are also finalizing as
proposed the changes to Sec. 425.610(b)(1)(iii) to add a cross
reference the new provision at Sec. 425.605(b)(2).
(3) Modifying the MSR/MLR To Address Small Population Sizes
As discussed in the introduction to this section, the MSR and MLR
protect against an ACO earning shared savings or being liable for
shared losses when the change in expenditures represents normal, or
random, variation rather than an actual change in performance. ACOs in
two-sided risk models that have opted for a fixed MSR/MLR can choose a
MSR/MLR of zero percent or a symmetrical MSR/MLR equal to 0.5 percent,
1.0 percent, 1.5 percent, or 2.0 percent. As discussed elsewhere in
this final rule, we proposed that ACOs in a two-sided model of the new
BASIC
[[Page 67926]]
track would have the same options in selecting their MSR/MLR, including
the option of a variable MSR/MLR based on the number of beneficiaries
assigned to the ACO.
Under the current regulations, for all ACOs in Track 1 and any ACO
in a two-sided risk model that has elected a variable MSR/MLR, we
determine the MSR and MLR (if applicable) for the performance year
based on the number of beneficiaries assigned to the ACO for the
performance year. For ACOs with at least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries
in the performance year, the variable MSR can range from a high of 3.9
percent (for ACOs with at least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries) to a low
of 2.0 percent (for ACOs with approximately 60,000 or more assigned
beneficiaries). See Sec. 425.604(b). For two-sided model ACOs under a
variable MSR/MLR, the MLR is equal to the negative of the MSR.
Under section 1899(b)(2)(D) of the Act, in order to be eligible to
participate in the Shared Savings Program an ACO must have at least
5,000 assigned beneficiaries. In earlier rulemaking, we established the
requirements under Sec. 425.110 to address situations in which an ACO
met the 5,000 assigned beneficiary requirement at the start of its
agreement period, but later falls below 5,000 assigned beneficiaries
during a performance year. We refer readers to the November 2011 and
June 2015 final rules and the CY 2017 PFS final rule for a discussion
of the relevant background and related considerations (see 76 FR 67807
and 67808, 67959; 80 FR 32705 through 32707; 81 FR 80515 and 80516).
CMS deems an ACO to have initially satisfied the requirement to have at
least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries if 5,000 or more beneficiaries are
historically assigned to the ACO participants in each of the 3
benchmark years, as calculated using the program's assignment
methodology (Sec. 425.110(a)). CMS initially makes this assessment at
the time of an ACO's application to the program. As specified in Sec.
425.110(b), if at any time during the performance year, an ACO's
assigned population falls below 5,000, the ACO may be subject to the
pre-termination actions described in Sec. 425.216 and termination of
the participation agreement by CMS under Sec. 425.218. As a pre-
termination action, CMS may require the ACO to submit a corrective
action plan (CAP) to CMS for approval (Sec. 425.216). While under a
CAP for having an assigned population below 5,000 assigned
beneficiaries, an ACO remains eligible for shared savings and liable
for shared losses (Sec. 425.110(b)(1)). If the ACO's assigned
population is not at least 5,000 by the end of the performance year
specified by CMS in its request for a CAP, CMS terminates the ACO's
participation agreement and the ACO is not eligible to share in savings
for that performance year (Sec. 425.110(b)(2)).
As specified in Sec. 425.1110(b)(1), if an ACO's performance year
assigned beneficiary population falls below 5,000, the ACO remains
eligible for shared savings/shared losses, but the following policies
apply with respect to the ACO's MSR/MLR: (1) For ACOs subject to a
variable MSR and MLR (if applicable), the MSR and MLR (if applicable)
will be set at a level consistent with the number of assigned
beneficiaries; (2) For ACOs with a fixed MSR/MLR, the MSR/MLR will
remain fixed at the level consistent with the choice of MSR and MLR
that the ACO made at the start of the agreement period.
To implement the requirement for the variable MSR and MLR (if
applicable) to be set at a level consistent with the number of assigned
beneficiaries, the CMS Office of the Actuary (OACT) calculates the MSR
ranges for populations smaller than 5,000 assigned beneficiaries. The
following examples are based on our operational experience: If an ACO's
assigned beneficiary population drops to 3,000, the MSR would be set at
5 percent; if the population falls to 1,000 or 500, the MSR would
correspondingly rise to 8.7 percent or 12.2 percent, respectively.
These sharp increases in the MSR reflect the greater random variation
that can occur when expenditures are calculated across a small number
of assigned beneficiaries.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41838), we noted that to
date, the number of ACOs that have fallen below the 5,000-beneficiary
threshold for a performance year has been relatively small. Among 432
ACOs that were reconciled in PY 2016, there were 12 ACOs with fewer
than 5,000 assigned beneficiaries. In PY 2015 there were 15 (out of 392
ACOs) below the threshold and in PY 2014 there were 14 (out of 333
ACOs). While the majority of these ACOs had between 4,000 and 5,000
beneficiaries, we observed the performance year population fall as low
as 513 for one ACO. Among the 472 ACOs that were subject to financial
reconciliation for performance year 2017, over 20 ACOs (4.2 percent)
fell below 5,000 assigned beneficiaries for the performance year, with
three ACOs with under 1,000 assigned beneficiaries.
Consistent with overall program participation trends, most ACOs
that fell below the 5,000-beneficiary threshold in performance year
2017 and in prior performance years were participating in Track 1.
These ACOs have thus automatically been subject to a variable MSR. With
increased participation in performance-based risk models, however, we
anticipate an increased likelihood of observing ACOs that have a fixed
MSR/MLR of plus or minus 2 percent or less falling below the 5,000-
beneficiary threshold.
Indeed, program data have demonstrated the popularity of the fixed
MSR/MLR among ACOs in two-sided models. In PY 2016, the first year that
ACOs in two-sided models were allowed to choose their MSR/MLR, 21 of 22
eligible ACOs selected one of the fixed options. Among the 42 Track 2
and Track 3 ACOs participating in PY 2017, 38 selected a MSR/MLR that
does not vary with the ACO's number of assigned beneficiaries,
including 11 that are subject to a MSR or MLR of zero percent. Among
101 ACOs participating in two-sided models in PY 2018, 80 are subject
to one of the fixed options, including 18 with a MSR and MLR of zero
percent.
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we indicated that while we
continue to believe that ACOs operating under performance-based risk
models should have flexibility in determining their exposure to risk
through the MSR/MLR selection, we are concerned about the potential for
rewarding ACOs with a fixed MSR/MLR that are unable to maintain a
minimum population of 5,000 beneficiaries through the payment of shared
savings for expenditure variation that is likely the result of normal
expenditure fluctuations, rather than the performance of the ACO. If
the ACO's minimum population falls below 5,000, the ACO is no longer in
compliance with program requirements. The reduction in the size of the
ACO's assigned beneficiary population would also raise concerns that
any shared savings payments made to the ACO would not reward true cost
savings, but instead would pay for normal expenditure fluctuations. We
noted, however, that an ACO under performance-based risk potentially
would be at greater risk of being liable for shared losses, also
stemming from such normal expenditure variation. If an ACO's assigned
population falls below the minimum requirement of 5,000 beneficiaries,
a solution to improve the confidence that shared savings and shared
losses do not represent normal variation, but meaningful changes in
expenditures, would be to apply a symmetrical MSR/MLR that varies based
on the number of beneficiaries assigned to the ACO.
The values for the variable MSR are shown in Table 9. As previously
[[Page 67927]]
described, the MLR is equal to the negative MSR. In this table, the MSR
ranges for population sizes varying between from 5,000 to over 60,000
assigned beneficiaries are consistent with the current approach to
determining a variable MSR based on the size of the ACO's population
(see Sec. 425.604(b)), and the corresponding variable MLR. We have
also added new values, calculated by the CMS OACT, for population sizes
varying from one to 4,999, as shown in Table 9. For ACOs with
populations between 500-4,999 beneficiaries, the MSR would range
between 12.2 percent (for ACOs with 500 assigned beneficiaries) and 3.9
percent (for ACOs with 4,999 assigned beneficiaries). For ACOs with
populations of 499 assigned beneficiaries or fewer, we would calculate
the MSR to be equal to or greater than 12.2 percent, with the MSR value
increasing as the ACO's assigned population decreases.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.013
Therefore, we proposed to modify Sec. 425.110(b) to provide that
we will use a variable MSR/MLR when performing shared savings and
shared losses calculations if an ACO's assigned beneficiary population
falls below 5,000 for the performance year, regardless of whether the
ACO selected a fixed or variable MSR/MLR. We proposed to use this
approach beginning with performance years starting in 2019. The
variable MSR/MLR would be determined using the same approach based on
number of assigned beneficiaries that is currently used for two-sided
model ACOs that have selected the variable option. If the ACO's
assigned beneficiary population increases to 5,000 or more for
subsequent performance years in the agreement period, the MSR/MLR would
revert to the fixed level selected by the ACO at the start of the
agreement period (or before moving to risk for ACOs on the BASIC
track's glide path), if applicable. While we believed this proposal
would have a fairly limited reach in terms of number of ACOs impacted,
we stated our belief that it is nonetheless important for protecting
the integrity of the Trust Funds and better ensuring that the program
is rewarding or penalizing ACOs for actual performance. We also noted
that the policy, if finalized, would make it more difficult for an ACO
under performance-based risk that falls below the 5,000-beneficiary
threshold to earn shared savings, but would also provide greater
protection against owing shared losses.
We also proposed to revise the regulations at Sec. 425.110 to
reorganize the provisions in paragraph (b), so that all current and
proposed policies for determining the MSR and MLR would apply to all
ACOs whose population falls below the 5,000-beneficiary threshold and
that are reconciled for shared savings or shared losses, as opposed to
being limited to ACOs under a CAP, as provided in the existing
provision at Sec. 425.110(b)(1). Specifically, we proposed to move the
current provisions on the determination of the MSR/MLR at paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) and (ii) to a new provision at paragraph (b)(3) where we
would also distinguish between the policies applicable to determining
the MSR/MLR for performance years starting before January 1, 2019, and
those that we proposed to apply for performance years starting in 2019
and subsequent years.
We proposed to specify the additional ranges for the MSR (when the
ACO's population falls below 5,000 assigned beneficiaries) through
revisions to the table at Sec. 425.604(b), for use in determining an
ACO's eligibility for shared savings for a performance year starting on
January 1, 2019, and any remaining years of the current agreement
period for ACOs under Track 1. We noted that the proposed ranges are
consistent with the program's
[[Page 67928]]
current policy for setting the MSR and MLR (in the event a two-sided
model ACO elected the variable MSR/MLR) when the population falls below
5,000 assigned beneficiaries, and therefore similar ranges would be
applied in determining the variable MSR/MLR for performance year 2017
and 2018. These ranges in Sec. 425.604(b) are cross-referenced in the
regulations for Track 2 at Sec. 425.606(b)(1)(ii)(C) and therefore
would also apply to Track 2 ACOs if their population falls below 5,000
assigned beneficiaries. Further, as discussed in section II.A.6.b.(2).
of this final rule, we proposed to specify under a new section of the
regulations at Sec. 425.605(b)(1) the range of MSR values that would
apply under a one-sided model of the BASIC track's glide path, which
would also be used in determining the variable MSR/MLR for ACOs
participating in two-sided models under the BASIC track and ENHANCED
track. We sought comment on these proposals and specifically on the
proposed MSR ranges for ACOs with fewer than 5,000 assigned
beneficiaries, including the application of a MSR/MLR in excess of 12
percent, in the case of ACOs that have failed to meet the requirement
to maintain a population of at least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries and
have very small population sizes. In particular, we sought commenters'
feedback on whether the proposed approach described in this section
could improve accountability of ACOs.
We also noted that the requirement of section 1899(b)(2)(D) of the
Act, for an ACO to have at least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries, would
continue to apply. The additional consequences for ACOs with fewer than
5,000 assigned beneficiaries, as specified in Sec. 425.110(b)(1) and
(2) would also continue to apply. Under Sec. 425.110(b)(2), ACOs are
not eligible to share savings for a performance year in which they are
terminated for noncompliance with the requirement to maintain a
population of at least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries. As discussed in
section II.A.6.d. of this final rule, in the August 2018 proposed rule,
we also proposed to revise our regulations governing the payment
consequences of early termination to include policies applicable to
involuntarily terminated ACOs. Under this proposed approach, two-sided
model ACOs would be liable for a pro-rated share of any shared losses
determined for the performance year during which a termination under
Sec. 425.110(b)(2) becomes effective.
Comment: One commenter noted that CMS established the original MSR/
MLR rates at a desired confidence level of 90 percent but, based on
their own analysis, they believe that CMS miscalculated and created
thresholds that were closer to 75 percent, meaning many ACOs receive
shared savings payments or repay losses based on random chance. The
commenter recommended that CMS consider widening the MSR and MLR
thresholds, such as by using a confidence level of 99 percent, to
protect ACOs from paying random losses and CMS from sharing random
savings.
In contrast, a few other commenters suggested that the current
range for variable MSRs is too high. One commenter suggested that with
a floor of 2 percent for ACOs with 60,000 or more assigned
beneficiaries and higher values for smaller ACOs, the current range of
MSR values disincentivizes small ACOs from participating in the
program. Another commenter asked CMS to consider reducing the variable
MSR to a range of 1 percent to 2.9 percent. They noted that when the
MSR is too high it is challenging for ACOs to be eligible for shared
savings and there is a strong disincentive for ACOs to continue in the
program. They believed that the proposed changes to the benchmarking
methodology would reduce volatility and improve accuracy of benchmarks
and that the range of the MSR should be reduced to reflect this.
Response: We appreciate commenters' feedback on the range of values
used to determine the variable MSR. We believe that there are tradeoffs
in setting the MSR range. We are concerned that widening the range
based on a 99 percent confidence level, while protecting the Trust
Funds from paying for savings and protecting risk-bearing ACOs from
repaying losses due to normal variation, would prevent the payment of
savings (or collection of losses) in too many cases where savings or
losses were not a result of normal variation. We also believe that
imposing more stringent thresholds before ACOs are eligible to earn
shared savings would be a deterrent to participation. At the same time,
we are also unwilling to lower the range of values used to determine
the variable MSR for ACOs in a one-sided risk model. While this would,
as commenters suggest, likely incentivize participation, we are
concerned that lowering the range would not provide adequate protection
to the Medicare Trust Funds.
Final Action: We did not receive any comments on our proposal to
use a variable MSR/MLR when performing shared savings and shared losses
calculations if the assigned beneficiary population for an ACO
participating under a two-sided model falls below 5,000 for the
performance year regardless of whether the ACO selected a fixed or
variable MSR/MLR. We are finalizing this policy as proposed through
revisions to Sec. 425.110(b), but are revising the applicability date,
such that the new policy will apply to performance years beginning on
or after July 1, 2019, rather than January 1, 2019, in order to ensure
that this change applies only prospectively. We are also making minor
revisions to paragraph (b)(1) for improved clarity and consistency.
We are also finalizing our proposals to specify the additional
ranges for the MSR (when the ACO's population falls below 5,000
assigned beneficiaries) through revisions to the table at Sec.
425.604(b) and the addition of a new section of the regulations at
Sec. 425.605(b)(1) that includes the range of MSR values that will
apply under the one-sided model of the BASIC track's glide path and
will also be used in determining the variable MSR/MLR for ACOs
participating in two-sided models under the BASIC track and ENHANCED
track.
c. ACO Repayment Mechanisms
(1) Background
We discussed in earlier rulemaking the requirement for ACOs
applying to enter a two-sided model to demonstrate they have
established an adequate repayment mechanism to provide CMS assurance of
their ability to repay shared losses for which they may be liable upon
reconciliation for each performance year.\18\ The requirements for an
ACO to establish and maintain an adequate repayment mechanism are
described in Sec. 425.204(f), and we have provided additional program
guidance on repayment mechanism arrangements.\19\ Section 425.204(f)
addresses various requirements for repayment mechanism arrangements:
The nature of the repayment mechanism; when documentation of the
repayment mechanism must be submitted to CMS; the amount of the
repayment mechanism; replenishment of the repayment mechanism funds
after
[[Page 67929]]
their use; and the duration of the repayment mechanism arrangement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 76 FR 67937 through 67940 (establishing the requirement
for Track 2 ACOs). See also 80 FR 32781 through 32785 (adopting the
same general requirements for Track 3 ACOs with respect to the
repayment mechanism and discussing modifications to reduce burden of
the repayment requirements on ACOs).
\19\ Medicare Shared Savings Program & Medicare ACO Track 1+
Model, Repayment Mechanism Arrangements, Guidance Document (July
2017, version #6), available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/Repayment-Mechanism-Guidance.pdf (herein Repayment Mechanism
Arrangements Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the requirements set forth in Sec. 425.204(f)(2),
in establishing a repayment mechanism for participation in a two-sided
model of the Shared Savings Program, ACOs must select from one or more
of the following three types of repayment arrangements: Funds placed in
escrow; a line of credit as evidenced by a letter of credit that the
Medicare program could draw upon; or a surety bond. Currently, our
regulations do not specify any requirements regarding the institutions
that may administer an escrow account or issue a line of credit or
surety bond. Our regulations require an ACO to submit documentation of
its repayment mechanism arrangement during the application or
participation agreement renewal process and upon request thereafter.
Under our existing regulations, a repayment mechanism arrangement
must be adequate to repay at least the minimum dollar amount specified
by CMS, which is determined based on an estimation methodology that
uses historical Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's
assigned population. For Track 2 and Track 3 ACOs, the repayment
mechanism must be equal to at least 1 percent of the total per capita
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries, as determined based on expenditures used to establish
the ACO's benchmark for the applicable agreement period, as estimated
by CMS at the time of application or participation agreement renewal
(see Sec. 425.204(f)(1)(ii), see also Repayment Mechanism Arrangements
Guidance). In the Repayment Mechanism Arrangements Guidance, we
describe in detail our approach to estimating the repayment mechanism
amount for Track 2 and Track 3 ACOs and our experience with the
magnitude of the dollar amounts.
Program stakeholders have continued to identify the repayment
mechanism requirement as a potential barrier for some ACOs to enter
into performance-based risk tracks, particularly small, physician-only
and rural ACOs that may lack access to the capital that is needed to
establish a repayment mechanism with a large dollar amount. We revised
the Track 1+ Model design in July 2017 (See Track 1+ Model Fact Sheet
(Updated July 2017)), to allow for potentially lower repayment
mechanism amounts for participating ACOs under a revenue-based loss
sharing limit (that is, ACOs that do not include an ACO participant
that is either (i) an IPPS hospital, cancer center, or rural hospital
with more than 100 beds; or (ii) an ACO participant that is owned or
operated by such a hospital or by an organization that owns or operates
such a hospital). This policy provides greater consistency between the
repayment mechanism amount and the level of risk assumed by revenue-
based or benchmark-based ACOs and helps alleviate the burden of
securing a higher repayment mechanism amount based on the ACO's
benchmark expenditures, as required for Track 2 and Track 3 ACOs. We
believed this approach would be appropriate for this subset of Track 1+
Model ACOs because they are generally at risk for repaying a lower
amount of shared losses than other ACOs that are subject to a
benchmark-based loss sharing limit (that is, ACOs that include the
types of ACO participants previously identified in this final rule).
Therefore, under the Track 1+ Model, a bifurcated approach is used to
determine the estimated amount of an ACO's repayment mechanism for
consistency with the bifurcated approach to determining the loss
sharing limit under the Track 1+ Model. For Track 1+ Model ACOs, CMS
estimates the amount of the ACO's repayment mechanism as follows:
ACOs subject to the benchmark-based loss sharing limit:
The repayment mechanism amount is 1 percent of the total per capita
Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries, as determined based on expenditures used to establish
the ACO's benchmark for the applicable agreement period.
ACOs subject to the revenue-based loss sharing limit:
The repayment mechanism amount is the lesser of (1) 2 percent of the
ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue, or (2) 1
percent of the total per capita Medicare Parts A and B FFS
expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries, as determined
based on expenditures used to establish the ACO's benchmark.
Under Sec. 425.204(f)(3), an ACO must replenish the amount of
funds available through the repayment mechanism within 90 days after
the repayment mechanism has been used to repay any portion of shared
losses owed to CMS. In addition, our regulations require a repayment
mechanism arrangement to remain in effect for a sufficient period of
time after the conclusion of the agreement period to permit CMS to
calculate and to collect the amount of shared losses owed by the ACO.
Under our current Repayment Mechanism Arrangements Guidance, this
standard would be satisfied by an arrangement that terminates 24 months
following the end of the agreement period.
(2) Repayment Mechanism Amounts
As previously noted, an ACO that is seeking to participate in a
two-sided model must submit for CMS approval documentation supporting
the adequacy of a mechanism for repaying shared losses, including
demonstrating that the value of the arrangement is at least the minimum
amount specified by CMS. In the August 2018 proposed rule, we proposed
to modify Sec. 425.204(f) to address concerns regarding the amount of
the repayment mechanism, to specify the data used by CMS to determine
the repayment mechanism amount, and to permit CMS to specify a new
repayment mechanism amount annually based on changes in ACO
participants.
In general, we believe that, like other ACOs participating in two-
sided risk tracks, ACOs applying to participate in the BASIC track
under performance-based risk should be required to provide CMS
assurance of their ability to repay shared losses by establishing an
adequate repayment mechanism. Consistent with the approach used under
the Track 1+ Model, we believed the amount of the repayment mechanism
should be potentially lower for BASIC track ACOs compared to the
repayment mechanism amounts required for ACOs in Track 2 or the
ENHANCED track. We proposed to calculate a revenue-based repayment
mechanism amount and a benchmark-based repayment mechanism amount for
each BASIC track ACO and require the ACO to obtain a repayment
mechanism for the lesser of the two amounts described previously. We
believed this aligned with our proposed approach for determining the
loss sharing limit for ACOs participating in the BASIC track, described
in section II.A.3.b. of this final rule. In addition, we believed this
approach would balance concerns about the ability of ACOs to take on
performance-based risk and repay any shared losses for which they may
be liable with concerns about the burden imposed on ACOs seeking to
enter and continue their participation in the BASIC track.
Previously, we have used historical data to calculate repayment
mechanism amounts, typically using the same reference year to calculate
the estimates consistently for all applicants to a two-sided model. As
a basis for the estimate, we have typically used assignment and
expenditure data from the most recent prior year for which 12 months of
data are available, which tends to be benchmark year 2 for ACOs
applying to enter the program or renew their participation agreement
(for example, calendar year 2016 data for ACOs
[[Page 67930]]
applying to enter participation agreements beginning January 1, 2018).
The Repayment Mechanism Arrangements Guidance includes a detailed
description of how we have previously estimated 1 percent of the total
per capita Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for an ACO's
assigned beneficiaries based on the expenditures used to establish the
ACO's benchmark. To continue calculating the estimates with
expenditures used to calculate the benchmark, we would need to use
different sets of historical data for ACOs applying to enter or renew
an agreement and those transitioning to a performance-based risk track.
That is because ACOs applying to start a new agreement period under the
program and ACOs transitioning to risk within different years of their
current agreement period will have different benchmark years. To avoid
undue operational burden, we proposed in the August 2018 proposed rule
to use the most recent calendar year, for which 12 months of data is
available to calculate repayment mechanism estimates for all ACOs
applying to enter, or transitioning to, performance-based risk for a
particular performance year. We believe this approach to using more
recent historical data to estimate the repayment mechanism amount would
more accurately approximate the level of losses for which the ACO could
be liable regardless of whether the ACO is subject to a benchmark-based
or revenue-based loss sharing limit.
Therefore, we proposed to amend Sec. 425.204(f)(4) to specify the
methodologies and data used in calculating the repayment mechanism
amounts for BASIC track, Track 2, and ENHANCED track ACOs. For an ACO
in Track 2 or the ENHANCED track, we proposed that the repayment
mechanism amount must be equal to at least 1 percent of the total per
capita Medicare Parts A and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries, based on expenditures for the most recent calendar year
for which 12 months of data are available. For a BASIC track ACO, we
proposed that the repayment mechanism amount must be equal to the
lesser of (i) 1 percent of the total per capita Medicare Parts A and B
FFS expenditures for its assigned beneficiaries, based on expenditures
for the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of data are
available; or (ii) 2 percent of the total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue of its ACO participants, based on revenue for the most recent
calendar year for which 12 months of data are available. For ACOs with
a participant agreement start date of July 1, 2019, we also proposed to
calculate the repayment mechanism amount using expenditure data from
the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of data are
available.
Currently, we generally do not revise the estimated repayment
mechanism amount for an ACO during its agreement period. For example,
we typically do not revise the repayment mechanism amount during an
ACO's agreement period to reflect annual changes in the ACO's certified
ACO participant list. However, in the Track 1+ Model, CMS may require
the ACO to adjust the repayment mechanism amount if changes in an ACO's
participant composition occur within the ACO's agreement period that
result in the application of relatively higher or lower loss sharing
limits. As explained in the Track 1+ Model Fact Sheet, if the estimated
repayment mechanism amount increases as a result of the ACO's change in
composition, CMS would require the Track 1+ ACO to demonstrate its
repayment mechanism is equal to this higher amount. If the estimated
amount decreases as a result of its change in composition, CMS may
permit the ACO to decrease the amount of its repayment mechanism (for
example, if CMS also determines the ACO does not owe shared losses from
the prior performance year under the Track 1+ Model).
As we indicated in the August 2018 proposed rule, we believe a
similar approach may be appropriate to address changes in the ACO's
composition over the course of an agreement period and to ensure the
adequacy of an ACO's repayment mechanism as it enters higher levels of
risk within the ENHANCED track or the BASIC track's glide path. During
an agreement period, an ACO's composition of ACO participant TINs and
the individuals who bill through the participant TINs may change. The
repayment mechanism estimation methodology we previously described in
this section uses data based on the ACO participant list, including
estimated expenditures for the ACO's assigned population, and in the
case of the proposed BASIC track, estimated revenue for ACO participant
TINs. See for example, Repayment Mechanism Arrangements Guidance
(describing the calculation of the repayment mechanism amount
estimate). As a result, over time the initial repayment mechanism
amount calculated by CMS may no longer represent the expenditure trends
for the ACO's assigned population or ACO participant revenue and
therefore may not be sufficient to ensure the ACO's ability to repay
losses. For this reason and we explained in the August 2018 proposed
rule, we believe it would be appropriate to periodically recalculate
the amount of the repayment mechanism arrangement.
For agreement periods beginning on or after July 1, 2019, we
proposed to recalculate the estimated amount of the ACO's repayment
mechanism arrangement before the second and each subsequent performance
year in which the ACO is under a two-sided model in the BASIC track or
ENHANCED track. If we determine the estimated amount of the ACO's
repayment mechanism has increased, we may require the ACO to
demonstrate the repayment mechanism arrangement covers at least an
amount equal to this higher amount.
We proposed to make this determination as part of the ACO's annual
certification process, in which it finalizes changes to its ACO
participant list prior to the start of each performance year. We would
recalculate the estimate for the ACO's repayment mechanism based on the
certified ACO participant list each year after the ACO begins
participation in a two-sided model in the BASIC track or ENHANCED
track. If the amount has increased substantially (for example, by at
least 10 percent or $100,000, whichever is the lesser value), we would
notify the ACO in writing and require the ACO to submit documentation
for CMS approval to demonstrate that the funding for its repayment
mechanism has been increased to reflect the recalculated repayment
mechanism amount. We would require the ACO to make this demonstration
within 90 days of being notified by CMS of the required increase.
We recognize that in some cases, the estimated amount may change
insignificantly. Requiring an amendment to the ACO's arrangement (such
as the case would be with a letter of credit or surety bond) would be
overly burdensome and not necessary for reassuring CMS of the adequacy
of the arrangement. Therefore, we proposed to evaluate the amount of
change in the ACO's repayment mechanism, comparing the newly estimated
amount and the amount estimated for the most recent prior performance
year. We proposed that, if this amount increases by equal to or greater
than either 10 percent or $100,000, whichever is the lesser value, we
would require the ACO to demonstrate that it has increased the dollar
amount of its arrangement to the recalculated amount. We solicited
comments on whether a higher or lower change in the repayment mechanism
estimate should trigger the ACO's
[[Page 67931]]
obligation to increase its repayment mechanism amount.
However, unlike the Track 1+ Model, we proposed that if the
estimated amount decreases as a result of the ACO's change in
composition, we would not permit the ACO to decrease the amount of its
repayment mechanism. The ACO repayment mechanism estimate does not
account for an ACO's maximum liability amount and it is possible for an
ACO to owe more in shared losses than is supported by the repayment
mechanism arrangement. Because of this, we believe it is more
protective of the Trust Funds to not permit decreases in the repayment
mechanism amount, during an ACO's agreement period under a two-sided
model, based on composition changes.
We believe the requirements for repayment mechanism amounts should
account for the special circumstances of renewing ACOs, which would
otherwise have to maintain two separate repayment mechanisms for
overlapping periods of time. As discussed in section II.A.5.c.(4). of
this final rule, we proposed to define ``renewing ACO'' to mean an ACO
that continues its participation in the program for a consecutive
agreement period, without a break in participation, because it is
either: (1) An ACO whose participation agreement expired and that
immediately enters a new agreement period to continue its participation
in the program; or (2) an ACO that terminated its current participation
agreement under Sec. 425.220 and immediately enters a new agreement
period to continue its participation in the program. We proposed at
Sec. 425.204(f)(3)(iv) that a renewing ACO can use its existing
repayment mechanism to demonstrate that it has the ability to repay
losses that may be incurred for performance years in the next agreement
period, as long as the ACO submits documentation that the term of the
repayment mechanism has been extended and the amount of the repayment
mechanism has been updated, if necessary. However, depending on the
circumstances, a renewing ACO may have greater potential liability for
shared losses under its existing agreement period compared to its
potential liability for shared losses under a new agreement period.
Therefore, we proposed that if an ACO wishes to use its existing
repayment mechanism to demonstrate its ability to repay losses in the
next agreement period, the amount of the existing repayment mechanism
must be equal to the greater of the following: (1) The amount
calculated by CMS in accordance with the benchmark-based methodology or
revenue-based methodology, as applicable by track (see proposed Sec.
425.204(f)(4)(iv)); or (2) the repayment mechanism amount that the ACO
was required to maintain during the last performance year of its
current agreement. We believed that this proposal would protect the
financial integrity of the program by ensuring that a renewing ACO will
remain capable of repaying losses incurred under its old agreement
period.
Finally, we proposed to consolidate at Sec. 425.204(f)(4) all of
our proposed policies, procedures, and requirements related to the
amount of an ACO's repayment mechanism, including provisions regarding
the calculation and recalculation of repayment mechanism amounts. We
also proposed to revise the regulations at Sec. 425.204 to streamline
and reorganize the provisions in paragraph (f), which we believe is
necessary to incorporate these and other proposed requirements
discussed in this final rule.
Comment: One commenter supported the flexibility that would be
afforded to BASIC track ACOs to establish a repayment mechanism amount
based on the lesser of 1 percent of the total per capita Medicare Parts
A and B FFS expenditures for its assigned beneficiaries or 2 percent of
the total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue of its ACO participants.
The commenter noted that this proposal would encourage participation in
two sided-models by ACOs that would otherwise have been unable to
secure funds necessary to participate in a two-sided model.
Response: We appreciate this feedback supporting our repayment
mechanism proposal for BASIC track ACOs. We agree with the commenter
that this policy should encourage participation by ACOs in two-sided
models by reducing the burden associated with establishing a repayment
mechanism.
In addition, to address concerns raised by commenters elsewhere in
this final rule regarding the burden on ACOs transitioning from the
BASIC track to the ENHANCED track (see section II.A.2), we are
extending this policy to ACOs participating in the ENHANCED track. We
believe that this will reduce the burden associated with establishing a
repayment mechanism on lower-revenue ACOs that would qualify for the
new revenue-based repayment mechanism. Accordingly, for an ACO
participating in a two-sided model under either the BASIC or ENHANCED
track, the repayment mechanism amount must be equal to the lesser of
(1) 1 percent of the total per capita Medicare Parts A and B FFS
expenditures for its assigned beneficiaries, based on expenditures for
the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of data are
available; or (ii) 2 percent of the total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue of its ACO participants, based on the revenue for the most
recent calendar year for which 12 months of data are available.
Comment: A few commenters supported our proposal to establish the
repayment mechanism amount based on expenditures for the most recent
calendar year for which 12 months of data are available, noting this
will likely allow for more accurate estimates of the level of losses
for which an ACO could be liable.
Response: We appreciate this feedback supporting our proposal to
use expenditure data from the most recent calendar year for which 12
months of data are available in determining an ACO's repayment
mechanism amount. We agree that this approach should lead to more
accurate estimates of the approximate level of losses for which an ACO
could be liable. We are finalizing this policy with respect to ACOs
participating in the BASIC and ENHANCED tracks. While we originally
proposed changes to the regulations to also apply this policy to Track
2 ACOs, we now believe that this policy would be irrelevant to Track 2
ACOs because we are retiring Track 2 as a participation option (see
section A.2 of this final rule) and no new Track 2 ACOs will be
entering the program on or after July 1, 2019. Furthermore, because we
proposed to apply our new policy of recalculating the repayment
mechanism amount on an annual basis only for agreement periods
beginning on or after July 1, 2019, we will not be required to
recalculate repayment mechanism amounts for existing Track 2 ACOs. For
these reasons, we are finalizing revisions to Sec. 425.204(f) so that
the repayment mechanism amount for Track 2 ACOs will be based on
expenditures used to calculate the benchmark, as is our current policy.
Comment: Several commenters disagreed with our proposal to require
an ACO to increase the dollar amount of its repayment mechanism
arrangement in instances where the estimated repayment mechanism amount
has increased by equal to or greater than either 10 percent or
$100,000, whichever is the lesser value. These commenters stated that a
threshold of the lesser of a 10 percent or $100,000 increase in the
estimated repayment mechanism value is too low. The commenters noted
that nearly all ACOs with a total cost of care of $200 million
[[Page 67932]]
or more would be required to increase their repayment mechanism amount
each year under a threshold of $100,000, which would increase the
burden on both CMS and ACOs. One commenter recommended that CMS use
only a threshold of 10 percent, rather than employing a ``lesser of''
approach.
Another commenter believed that our proposed threshold seemed
reasonable but requested that CMS provide information about the number
of ACOs that such threshold would potentially impact before finalizing
this policy. This commenter also advocated that ACOs required to
increase their repayment mechanism amount under such a policy should be
provided with adequate time to do so.
Response: We are persuaded by commenters' suggestions to increase
the thresholds that would trigger the requirement for an ACO to
increase the dollar amount of its repayment mechanism arrangement. We
are therefore finalizing a provision that will require an ACO to
increase its repayment mechanism amount if the estimated value of the
repayment mechanism amount increases by equal to or greater than 50
percent or $1,000,000, whichever is the lesser value. This would
replace our originally proposed threshold of 10 percent or $100,000.
These revised amounts are based on an analysis we conducted of the most
recently available ACO repayment mechanism data. The analysis showed
that a higher threshold of 50 percent or $1,000,000 would likely
require only ACOs that had the largest changes in their estimated
repayment mechanism value (the top 5 to 10 percent of ACOs) to increase
their repayment mechanism amounts. We believe that this less
restrictive requirement will minimize an ACO's administrative burden
and financial institution fees while adjusting for meaningful changes
in repayment mechanism amounts that will help protect the Medicare
Trust Funds.
Comment: A few commenters expressed the belief that it would be
unfair to require repayment mechanism amounts to increase from year to
year without also allowing them to decrease. These commenters requested
that CMS amend its proposal to allow for decreases in a repayment
mechanism amount. The commenters also requested that CMS provide
flexibility to release funds available through the repayment mechanism
for a limited period of time (for example, for a 60 day period) for
ACOs that need to change their repayment mechanism during an agreement
period. We presume that the commenter suggested this to allow an ACO to
switch to a new repayment mechanism without having to put up new
monies, but the commenter does not directly state or suggest this.
Response: We decline at this time to allow ACOs to reduce their
repayment mechanism amount if their estimated repayment mechanism value
decreases. As we noted in the background to this section, the repayment
mechanism estimate does not account for an ACO's maximum liability
amount, and it is possible for an ACO to owe more in shared losses than
is supported by a repayment mechanism arrangement. For this reason, we
believe it would be more protective of the Trust Funds to not permit
decreases in the repayment mechanism amount during an ACO's agreement
period under a two-sided model. Similarly, the suggestion to allow
release of funds for a limited period of time is outside the scope of
our proposal and we therefore decline to adopt such suggestion at this
time. We will monitor the number of ACOs that are affected by our
finalized policy and the extent of the administrative burden on ACOs
and on CMS and will use this information to refine our policies through
future notice and comment rulemaking, if warranted.
Comment: Several commenters suggested the proposed repayment
mechanism amounts were too high. A few commenters recommended that the
repayment mechanism amount for BASIC track ACOs be lowered to 0.5
percent of the ACO's total per capita Medicare Parts A and B FFS
expenditures or 1 percent of the total Medicare Parts A and B FFS
revenue of its ACO participants. The commenters believed these lower
amounts would be sufficient to prompt third-party due diligence and
establish credit worthiness within the probable range of shared losses.
Several other commenters expressed concern that rural ACOs would
not be able to fund the required repayment mechanism amounts. Some
noted that small rural hospitals, rural health clinics, and FQHCs lack
the necessary resources to bear the additional expense. Another noted
that small ACOs in rural areas may not have the cash flow to support
ACO activities that produce savings and establish a repayment mechanism
arrangement at the same time. Another commenter requested that when
calculating a repayment mechanism amount CMS take into consideration
whether the ACO has experienced an extreme and uncontrollable event.
The commenter requested that CMS address the issue when developing its
policy for extreme and uncontrollable circumstances.
Several other commenters generally warned about the cost burden
associated with the repayment mechanism requirement. One commenter
noted that as non-profit, low revenue organization, it would
potentially be forced out of the program because of its inability to
fund a repayment mechanism due to lack of capital. Another commenter
described the cost of having a repayment mechanism as contributing to
the ``high hurdle'' of transitioning to accountable care.
Response: We appreciate the feedback on the proposed repayment
mechanism amounts and the perspectives offered on rural ACOs, ACOs
affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances, and other ACOs
with limited access to capital. While we recognize that repayment
mechanisms impose costs on ACOs, we believe they are necessary to
protect the financial integrity of the program and of the Medicare
Trust Funds. We believe that providing a ``lesser of'' approach to the
repayment mechanism amount for all ACOs in two-sided models will help
to mitigate this issue for rural ACOs or ACOs that otherwise face
funding constraints. We therefore decline to make changes to the
proposed repayment mechanism amounts at this time.
Final Action: After considering the comments received, we are
finalizing with modification our proposed provisions at Sec.
425.204(f)(4) regarding the repayment mechanism amount as follows.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.204(f)(4)(i) to state that, for a Track
2 ACO, the repayment mechanism amount must be equal to at least 1
percent of the total per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service
expenditures used to calculate the benchmark for the applicable
agreement period, as estimated by CMS at the time of application.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.204(f)(4)(ii) to state that, for a
BASIC track or ENHANCED track ACO, the repayment mechanism amount must
be equal to the lesser of the following: (A) One percent of the total
per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service expenditures for the
ACO's assigned beneficiaries, based on expenditures for the most recent
calendar year for which 12 months of data are available; or (B) two
percent of the total Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service revenue of
its ACO participants, based on revenue for the most recent calendar
year for which 12 months of data are available.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.204(f)(4)(iii) to state that, for
agreement periods beginning on or after July 1, 2019, CMS recalculates
the ACO's repayment
[[Page 67933]]
mechanism amount before the second and each subsequent performance year
in the agreement period based on the certified ACO participant list for
the relevant performance year. If the recalculated repayment mechanism
amount exceeds the existing repayment mechanism amount by at least 50
percent or $1,000,000, whichever is the lesser value, CMS notifies the
ACO in writing that the amount of its repayment mechanism must be
increased to the recalculated repayment mechanism amount. Within 90
days after receipt of such written notice from CMS, the ACO must submit
for CMS approval documentation that the amount of its repayment
mechanism has been increased to the amount specified by CMS.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.204(f)(4)(iv) to state that, in the
case of an ACO that has submitted a request to renew its participation
agreement and wishes to use its existing repayment mechanism to
establish its ability to repay any shared losses incurred for
performance years in the new agreement period, the amount of the
repayment mechanism must be equal to the greater of the following: (A)
The amount calculated by CMS in accordance with Sec. 425.204(f)(4)(ii)
of this section; or (B) the repayment mechanism amount that the ACO was
required to maintain during the last performance year of the
participation agreement it seeks to renew.
(3) Submission of Repayment Mechanism Documentation
Currently, ACOs applying to enter a performance-based risk track
under the Shared Savings Program must meet the eligibility
requirements, including demonstrating they have established an adequate
repayment mechanism under Sec. 425.204(f). We noted in the August 2018
proposed rule that we believed that modifications to the existing
repayment mechanism requirements would be necessary to address
circumstances that could arise if our proposed approach to allowing
ACOs to enter or change risk tracks during the current agreement period
is finalized. Specifically, we believed modifications would be
necessary to reflect the possibility that an ACO that initially entered
into an agreement period under the one-sided model years of the BASIC
track's glide path will transition to performance-based risk within
their agreement period, and thereby would become subject to the
requirement to establish a repayment mechanism.
The current regulations specify that an ACO participating under a
two-sided model must demonstrate the adequacy of its repayment
mechanism prior to the start of each agreement period in which it takes
risk and upon request thereafter (Sec. 425.204(f)(3)). We are
revisiting this policy in light of our proposal to automatically
transition ACOs in the BASIC track's glide path from a one-sided model
to a two-sided model beginning in their third performance year, and
also under our proposal that would allow BASIC ACOs to elect to
transition to performance-based risk beginning in their second
performance year of the glide path.
We believe ACOs participating in the BASIC track's glide path
should be required to demonstrate they have established an adequate
repayment mechanism consistent with the requirement for ACOs applying
to enter an agreement period under performance-based risk. Therefore,
we proposed to amend the regulations to provide that an ACO entering an
agreement period in Levels C, D, or E of the BASIC track's glide path
must demonstrate the adequacy of its repayment mechanism prior to the
start of its agreement period and at such other times as requested by
CMS. In addition, we proposed that an ACO entering an agreement period
in Level A or Level B of the BASIC track's glide path must demonstrate
the adequacy of its repayment mechanism prior to the start of any
performance year in which it either elects to participate in, or is
automatically transitioned to a two-sided model (Level C, Level D, or
Level E) of the BASIC track's glide path, and at such other times as
requested by CMS. We sought comment on these proposals.
Final Action: We received no comments on these proposals. We are
therefore finalizing our proposed revisions to Sec. 425.204(f)(3)
without modification.
(4) Repayment Mechanism Duration
We acknowledged in the August 2018 proposed rule that the proposed
change to an agreement period of at least 5 years would affect the term
for the repayment mechanism. Under the program's current requirements,
the repayment mechanism must be in effect for a sufficient period of
time after the conclusion of the agreement period to permit CMS to
calculate the amount of shared losses owed and to collect this amount
from the ACO (Sec. 425.204(f)(4)).
We pointed readers to the June 2015 final rule for a discussion of
the requirement for ACOs to demonstrate that they would be able to
repay shared losses incurred at any time within the agreement period,
and for a reasonable period of time after the end of each agreement
period (the ``tail period''). We explained that this tail period must
be sufficient to permit CMS to calculate the amount of any shared
losses that may be owed by the ACO and to collect this amount from the
ACO (see 80 FR 32783). This is necessary, in part, because financial
reconciliation results are not available until the summer following the
conclusion of the performance year. We have interpreted this
requirement to be satisfied if the repayment mechanism arrangement
remains in effect for 24 months after the end of the agreement period
(see Repayment Mechanism Arrangements Guidance). Once ACOs are notified
of shared losses, based on financial reconciliation, they have 90 days
to make payment in full (see Sec. Sec. 425.606(h) and 425.610(h)).
We proposed to specify at Sec. 425.204(f)(6) the general rule that
a repayment mechanism must be in effect for the duration of the ACO's
participation in a two-sided model plus 24 months after the conclusion
of the agreement period. Based on our experience with repayment
mechanisms, we believed ACOs would be able to work with financial
institutions to establish repayment mechanism arrangements that would
cover a 5-year agreement period plus a 24-month tail period. This
proposed approach would have been consistent with the program's current
guidance.
We proposed some exceptions to this general rule. First, we
proposed that CMS may require an ACO to extend the duration of its
repayment mechanism beyond the 24-month tail period if necessary to
ensure that the ACO will repay CMS any shared losses for each of the
performance years of the agreement period. We indicated that this may
be necessary in rare circumstances to protect the financial integrity
of the program.
Second, we proposed that the duration requirement account for the
special circumstances of renewing ACOs, which would otherwise have to
maintain two separate repayment mechanisms for overlapping periods of
time. As previously noted, we proposed at Sec. 425.204(f)(3)(iv) that
a renewing ACO can choose to use its existing repayment mechanism to
demonstrate that it has the ability to repay losses that may be
incurred for performance years in the next agreement period, as long as
the ACO submits documentation that the term of the repayment mechanism
has been extended and the amount of the repayment mechanism has been
increased, if necessary. We proposed at Sec. 425.204(f)(6) that the
term of the existing repayment mechanism must be
[[Page 67934]]
extended in these cases and that it must periodically be extended
thereafter upon notice from CMS.
We considered the amount of time by which we would require the
existing repayment mechanism to be extended. As discussed in section
II.A.5. of this final rule, renewing ACOs (as we proposed to define
that term at Sec. 425.20) may have differing numbers of years
remaining under their current repayment mechanism arrangements
depending on whether the ACO is renewing at the conclusion of its
existing agreement period or if the ACO is an early renewal
(terminating its current agreement to enter a new agreement period
without interruption in participation). We recognized that it may be
difficult for ACOs that are completing the term of their current
agreement period to extend an existing repayment mechanism by 7 years
(that is, for the full 5-year agreement term plus 24 months).
Therefore, we considered whether the program would be adequately
protected if we permitted the existing repayment mechanism to be
extended long enough to cover the first 2 or 3 performance years of the
new agreement period (that is, an extension of 4 or 5 years,
respectively, including the 24-month tail period). We solicited comment
on whether we should require a longer or shorter extension.
We explained that, if we permit an ACO to extend its existing
repayment mechanism for less than 7 years, we would require the ACO to
extend the arrangement periodically upon notice from CMS. Under this
approach, the ACO would eventually have a repayment mechanism
arrangement that would not expire until at least 24 months after the
end of the new agreement period. We sought comment on whether this
approach should also apply to an ACO entering two-sided risk for the
first time (that is, an ACO that is not renewing its participation
agreement). We would continue to permit a renewing ACO to maintain two
separate repayment mechanisms (one for the current agreement period and
one for the new agreement period).
Under our proposal, if CMS notifies a renewing ACO that its
repayment mechanism amount will be higher for the new agreement period,
the ACO may either (i) establish a second repayment mechanism
arrangement in the higher amount for 7 years (or for a lesser duration
that we have specified in this final rule), or (ii) increase the amount
of its existing repayment mechanism to the amount specified by CMS and
extend the term of the repayment mechanism arrangement for an amount of
time specified by CMS (7 years or for a lesser duration that we have
specified in this final rule). We proposed that, on the other hand, if
CMS notifies a renewing ACO that the repayment mechanism amount for its
new agreement period is equal to or lower than its existing repayment
mechanism amount, then the ACO could similarly choose to extend the
duration of its existing repayment mechanism instead of obtaining a
second repayment mechanism for the new agreement period. However, in
that case, the ACO would be required to maintain the repayment
mechanism at the existing higher amount.
Third, we believed that the term of a repayment mechanism may
terminate earlier than 24 months after the agreement period if it is no
longer needed. Under certain conditions, we permit early termination of
a repayment mechanism and release of the arrangement's remaining funds
to the ACO. These conditions are specified in the Repayment Mechanism
Arrangements Guidance, and we proposed to include similar requirements
at Sec. 425.204(f)(6). Specifically, we proposed that the repayment
mechanism may be terminated at the earliest of the following
conditions:
The ACO has fully repaid CMS any shared losses owed for
each of the performance years of the agreement period under a two-
sided model;
CMS has exhausted the amount reserved by the ACO's
repayment mechanism and the arrangement does not need to be
maintained to support the ACO's participation under the Shared
Savings Program; or
CMS determines that the ACO does not owe any shared
losses under the Shared Savings Program for any of the performance
years of the agreement period. For example, if a renewing ACO opts
to establish a second repayment mechanism for its new agreement
period, it may request to cancel the first repayment mechanism after
reconciliation for the final performance year of its previous
agreement period if it owes no shared losses for the final
performance year and it has repaid all shared losses, if any,
incurred during the previous agreement period.
We solicited comments on whether the provisions proposed at Sec.
425.204(f)(6) are adequate to protect the financial integrity of the
Shared Savings Program, to provide greater certainty to ACOs and
financial institutions, and to facilitate the establishment of
repayment mechanism arrangements.
Comment: We did not receive any comments in support of our proposal
to require, as a general rule, that an ACO's repayment mechanism be in
effect for the duration of the ACO's participation in a two-sided model
plus 24 months after the conclusion of the agreement period, or up to a
seven-year period for ACOs entering a five-year agreement period under
two-sided risk. A few commenters requested that CMS remove the 24-month
tail period, expressing concerns that a 24-month tail period would
increase financial requirements for ACOs. These commenters believe that
if CMS decides to finalize the 24-month tail period policy, then the
agency should be liable to pay for additional shared savings discovered
during the 24-months following the end of an agreement period.
Several other commenters recommended that we shorten the repayment
mechanism tail period to 12 months, noting that this would meet the
run-out time for financial reconciliation and allow sufficient time for
an ACO to repay any associated shared losses. Another commenter stated
that a 24-month tail period would place undue burden on small and low-
revenue ACOs and recommended that CMS use a 12- to 18-month tail period
instead, which the commenter believes is a sufficient period for CMS to
determine if an ACO has incurred shared losses and for an ACO to repay
those losses.
Response: We are persuaded by commenters' concerns regarding the
potential burden associated with our proposed requirement that ACOs
have in effect a repayment mechanism for the duration of the ACO's
participation in a two-sided model plus 24 months after the conclusion
of the agreement period (which, as proposed, would require such ACOs to
procure a repayment mechanism for a five-year agreement period plus an
additional 24-month tail period). We agree that financial
reconciliation and the repayment of any losses will normally occur
within 12 months following the conclusion of a performance year except
in very limited circumstances. Because we believe that such exceptions
would be rare based on or our experience in collecting shared losses
from ACOs, we believe the added risk to the Trust Funds of reducing the
tail period to 12 months would be limited and is outweighed by the
desire to reduce burden on ACOs. We are therefore finalizing a policy
to reduce the length of the required tail period to 12 months following
the end of the agreement period.
Comment: Several commenters raised concerns about the ability of an
ACO to obtain a repayment mechanism that would cover a 5-year agreement
period plus our proposed 24-month tail period. One commenter
specifically raised concerns about the ability of rural ACOs to obtain
a repayment mechanism that would satisfy our proposed duration
requirement due to the insufficient
[[Page 67935]]
collateral available to independent, rural physicians and a likely
unwillingness of lenders to extend credit when there may be changes to
regulations under the Shared Savings Program after the repayment
mechanism is issued. The commenter noted that if an ACO does not have
funding to pay for a repayment mechanism and is therefore forced to
terminate its participation in the program, then the ACO will lose its
investment and anticipated shared savings.
Other commenters expressed concern that the lengthened duration
would adversely affect ACOs that use surety bonds as a repayment
mechanism, noting that that surety bonds are rarely issued beyond five
years. One commenter noted that a seven-year surety bond would likely
require an ACO to bear significant carrying costs. Another commenter
stated that the requirement to maintain a seven-year term would
severely limit the availability of surety bonds available to ACOs and
would most likely require 100 percent collateral, thereby imposing a
significant liquidity and capital burden on ACOs. The commenter
indicated that this would be especially problematic for physician-led
and small, rural ACOs that lack access to low-cost capital. Another
commenter advised that extending repayment mechanisms to five-year
agreement period with a 24-month tail might limit the availability of
surety bonds to ACOs because the higher risk associated with the longer
duration of the bonded obligation could cause issuers to tighten their
underwriting standards.
Some commenters recommended a repayment mechanism duration of no
more than 3 years, with annual renewal of the repayment mechanism
through the end of the tail period. One commenter suggested that this
alternative, coupled with a reduction of the threshold for requiring an
ACO to update its repayment mechanism amount, would protect the
financial integrity of the program, streamline to one consistent
repayment mechanism, and preserve the viability of surety bonds and
letters of credit for physician-led and small, rural ACOs.
Response: We appreciate the concerns raised by stakeholders
regarding the potential impact of our proposed repayment mechanism
duration requirements on the availability of repayment mechanism
arrangements, including the availability of surety bonds. We first
reiterate that we are reducing the total required duration of a
repayment mechanism arrangement by reducing the length of the required
tail period from 24 months to 12 months following the end of an
agreement period. Based on this modification to our proposed repayment
mechanism duration policy and our experience with repayment mechanisms,
we continue to believe that ACOs, including ACOs that obtain surety
bonds, will be able to work with financial institutions to establish
repayment mechanism arrangements that will cover a 5-year agreement
period plus the 12-month tail period. For example, we note that five of
eight ACOs that exercised the deferred renewal option finalized in the
June 2016 final rule, secured an approved surety bond for a 6-year
term.
In addition, we are modifying our policy to permit ACOs to satisfy
the duration requirement by establishing a repayment mechanism that
covers a term of at least the first two performance years in which the
ACO is participating under a two-sided model and that provides for
automatic, annual 12-month extensions of the repayment mechanism such
that the repayment mechanism will eventually remain in effect for the
duration of the agreement period plus 12 months following the
conclusion of the agreement period. For example, an ACO seeking to
enter into a participation agreement with CMS under the ENHANCED track
on January 1, 2020 could choose to establish a repayment mechanism with
a term of six years to cover the five-year agreement period plus a 12-
month tail period. Alternatively, the ACO could establish a repayment
mechanism covering the first two performance years (ending December 31,
2021) and providing for automatic annual 12 month extensions starting
at the end of the first performance year. After the repayment mechanism
has been in effect for one performance year (that is, at the end of
2020, the first performance year of the agreement period), the term
would automatically be extended by an additional 12 months (through
December 31, 2022). Additional automatic 12-month extensions would
occur on a rolling basis at the end of the second, third, and fourth
performance years of the agreement period, with the last of these
extending the arrangement until 12 months after the end of the
agreement period (through December 31, 2025).
For an ACO entering into a participation agreement with CMS under
two-sided risk on July 1, 2019 that chooses this option (that is, a
repayment mechanism that has a term of at least two performance years
and that provides for automatic, annual 12-month extensions), the
initial term of the repayment mechanism arrangement would be 18 months
because the repayment mechanism would cover the 6-month performance
beginning July 1, 2019 and the 12-month performance year beginning
January 1, 2020. At the end of 2019 (after the repayment mechanism has
been in effect for one performance year), the term of the repayment
mechanism would automatically be extended by 12 months through the end
of the third performance year of the agreement period (through December
31, 2021). Because the agreement period would include six performance
years in total, additional automatic 12-month extensions would occur on
a rolling basis at the end of the second, third, fourth, and fifth
performance years, ultimately extending the arrangement until 12 months
after the end of the agreement period (through December 31, 2025).
The initial term of the repayment mechanism cannot expire before
the end of the second performance year because the amount of any shared
losses incurred for the first performance year will not be known until
the second half of the second performance year. We note that the annual
12-month extensions would be occurring one year before the repayment
mechanism would otherwise expire. However, the rolling 12-month
extensions ensure that a new performance year will not start without
ensuring that the repayment mechanism will remain in effect when the
ACO is obligated to repay shared losses, if any, for that new
performance year. As discussed below, we are finalizing a similar
policy for any renewing ACO that wishes to use its existing repayment
mechanism to guarantee its ability to repay shared losses.
We believe that allowing ACOs to obtain a repayment mechanism with
a shorter initial term will provide additional flexibility to and
lessen the potential burden on ACOs, including physician-led, small and
rural ACOs. Furthermore, we believe that requiring automatic, annual
12-month extensions of the repayment mechanism will also reduce the
burden on an ACO to take action to extend or renew the term of its
repayment mechanism, while sufficiently protecting the Medicare Trust
Funds. We also believe that this policy, along with the ``lesser of''
repayment mechanism amounts policy that we are finalizing (as described
in section II.A.6.c.(2) of this final rule), addresses concerns that
certain ACOs have limited access to funds to obtain a repayment
mechanism.
While we believe that the modifications to the repayment mechanism
policies that we are finalizing in this rule will, in total,
[[Page 67936]]
reduce burden on ACOs relative to the proposed policies, we recognize
that some ACOs may still be unable to meet the repayment mechanism
requirements and would need to terminate their participation in the
program. We note that in these cases, the policies for payment
consequences of early termination that we are finalizing in section
II.A.6.d.(3) of this final rule would apply.
Comment: One commenter affiliated with surety bond issuers
recommended that the regulation should clearly state that extending the
duration or increasing the amount of a surety bond requires the
surety's consent, and that refusal by the surety to extend or increase
the bond should not trigger a default under the existing bond.
Response: We realize that the surety would need to consent to
extending the duration or increasing the amount of a surety bond, but
we do not believe that our regulations need to be revised to state
this. If the surety refuses to extend the term of the bond or to
increase the amount of the bond, the ACO would be required to enter
into a different or additional repayment mechanism arrangement that
satisfies the terms of our regulations. We therefore decline to adopt
the commenter's recommendation.
Comment: One commenter supported a policy we considered in the
proposed rule that would allow a renewing ACO to extend its existing
repayment mechanism long enough to cover the first 2 or 3 performance
years of its new agreement period, provided that the ACO periodically
extends its repayment mechanism until the end of the tail period. The
commenter believes that this option would balance the need to protect
the integrity of the program while not necessarily creating a burden
that would inhibit continued ACO participation, which could occur if
ACOs are required to obtain a seven-year extension on top of an
existing repayment term. The commenter noted that a seven-year
extension could be prohibitively difficult for an ACO to secure.
Response: We appreciate this commenter's feedback on the
alternative approach for extension of a renewing ACO's existing
repayment mechanism, which we considered in the proposed rule. We agree
with the commenter's concerns and are therefore finalizing a policy
that would allow a renewing ACO two options for extending its existing
repayment mechanism to meet the duration requirement.
Under the first option, a renewing ACO's existing repayment
mechanism would be extended to cover the new agreement period plus 12
months following the end of the new agreement period. For example, an
ACO that started participating under Track 2 of the Shared Savings
Program in 2017 would have established a five year repayment mechanism
expiring on December 31, 2021 (covering its current three-year
agreement period plus a 24-month tail period). If the ACO renews its
participation in the program under the ENHANCED Track on January 1,
2020, then the ACO would have two years of its existing repayment
mechanism remaining at time of renewal and could therefore satisfy the
duration requirement by extending its existing repayment mechanism
arrangement by four years (until December 31, 2025) when entering its
new five-year agreement period. The remaining term of the existing
repayment mechanism (two years) plus the extension (four years) would
together cover the full duration of the new five-year agreement period
plus the 12-month tail period.
Under the second option, a renewing ACO's existing repayment
mechanism would be extended, if necessary, to cover a term of at least
the first two performance years of the new agreement period and would
provide for automatic, annual 12-month extensions of the repayment
mechanism such that the repayment mechanism will eventually remain in
effect until 12 months following the completion of the new agreement
period. For example, consider an ACO that has one year remaining on its
existing repayment mechanism at the time it renews its participation on
January 1, 2020. In this case, the existing arrangement would need to
be extended by one year (until December 31, 2021) such that the new
term of the existing repayment arrangement does not expire before the
end of the second performance year of the new agreement period. The
arrangement would also need to be amended to include a clause that
provides for automatic, annual 12-month extensions of the arrangement
starting at the end of the first performance year of the new agreement
period. Thus, at the end of the first performance year in December
2020, the repayment mechanism (which would otherwise expire on December
31, 2021) would be extended an additional 12 months and thereby expire
on December 31, 2022. At the end of the second performance year in
December 2021, the repayment mechanism would again be extended another
12 months and thereby expire on December 31, 2023. Eventually, the
rolling annual 12-month extensions would cause the repayment mechanism
to expire 12 months after the end of the agreement period (on December
31, 2025), and no further extensions would be required.
We believe that these options for the extension of an existing
repayment mechanism arrangement will help ensure payment of shared
losses and alleviate the concerns raised by the commenter about lengthy
extensions potentially inhibiting continued ACO participation in the
program. We also wish to note that these options would also be
available to an ACO that voluntarily terminates its existing agreement
period and then immediately enters a new agreement period without a
break in participation (described as an early renewal in section
II.A.5.c.(4) of this final rule) and would be applied in the same
manner. Finally we wish to clarify that renewing ACOs (including early
renewals) can also choose to establish a new repayment mechanism
arrangement that either covers the full duration of the new agreement
period plus the 12-month tail period or covers a term of at least two
years and provides for automatic annual 12-month extensions as
described above.
Comment: One commenter supported our proposal to permit early
termination of a repayment mechanism under certain conditions, such as
when we determine that the ACO does not owe shared losses under the
Shared Savings Program for any of the performance years of the ACO's
agreement period.
Response: We thank the commenter for their support of this
proposal. We are finalizing our policy regarding early termination of a
repayment mechanism as proposed.
Final Action: After considering the comments received, we are
finalizing with modification our proposed provisions regarding the
duration of the repayment mechanism at Sec. 425.204(f)(6) as follows.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.204(f)(6) to state that with limited
exceptions, a repayment mechanism must be in effect for the duration of
an ACO's participation under a two-sided model plus 12 months after the
conclusion of the agreement period.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.204(f)(6)(i) to state that for an ACO
that is establishing a new repayment mechanism to meet this
requirement, the repayment mechanism must satisfy one of the following
criteria: (A) The repayment mechanism covers the entire duration of the
ACO's participation under a two-sided model plus 12 months following
the conclusion of the agreement period; or (B) the repayment mechanism
covers an term of at least the first two
[[Page 67937]]
performance years in which the ACO is participating under a two sided
model and provides for automatic, annual 12-month extensions of the
repayment mechanism such that the repayment mechanism will eventually
remain in effect through the duration of the agreement period plus 12
months following the conclusion of the agreement period.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.204(f)(6)(ii) to state that for a
renewing ACO that wishes to use its existing repayment mechanism to
establish its ability to repay any shared losses incurred for
performance years in the new agreement period, the existing repayment
mechanism must be amended to meet one of the following criteria (A) the
duration of the existing repayment mechanism is extended by an amount
of time that covers the duration of the new agreement period plus 12
months following the conclusion of the new agreement period; or (B) the
duration of the existing repayment mechanism is extended, if necessary,
to cover a term of at least the first two performance years of the new
agreement period and provides for automatic, annual 12-month extensions
of the repayment mechanism such that the repayment mechanism will
eventually remain in effect through the duration of the new agreement
period plus 12 months following the conclusion of the new agreement
period.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.204(f)(6)(iii) to state that, CMS may
require an ACO to extend the duration of its repayment mechanism beyond
the 12-month tail period if necessary to ensure that the ACO fully
repays CMS any shared losses for each of the performance years of the
agreement period.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.204(f)(6)(iv) to state that a repayment
mechanism may be terminated at the earliest of the following
conditions: (A) The ACO has fully repaid CMS any shared losses owed for
each of the performance years of the agreement period under a two-sided
model; (B) CMS has exhausted the amount reserved by the ACO's repayment
mechanism and the arrangement does not need to be maintained to support
the ACO's participation under the Shared Savings Program; or (C) CMS
determines that the ACO does not owe any shared losses under the Shared
Savings Program for any of the performance years of the agreement
period.
We note that, as modified, paragraphs Sec. 425.204(f)(6)(i) and
(ii), set forth the ways in which an ACO may meet the general
requirement for the repayment mechanism described in Sec.
425.204(f)(6).
Based on these finalized provisions, if CMS notifies a renewing ACO
that its repayment mechanism amount will be higher for the new
agreement period, the ACO may either (i) establish a second repayment
mechanism arrangement in the higher amount under one of the options set
forth in Sec. 425.204(f)(6)(i); or (ii) increase the amount of its
existing repayment mechanism to the higher amount and amend the
existing repayment mechanism arrangement under one of the options set
forth in Sec. 425.204(f)(6)(ii). On the other hand, if CMS notifies a
renewing ACO that the repayment mechanism amount for its new agreement
period is equal to or lower than its existing repayment mechanism
amount, the ACO may choose to amend its existing repayment mechanism
under one of the options set forth in instead of obtaining a second
repayment mechanism for the new agreement period. However, in that
case, the ACO would be required to maintain the repayment mechanism at
the existing higher amount.
(5) Institutions Issuing Repayment Mechanism Arrangements
We also proposed additional requirements related to the financial
institutions through which ACOs establish their repayment mechanism
arrangements that would be applicable to all ACOs participating in a
performance-based risk track. With the proposed changes to offer only
the BASIC track and ENHANCED track for agreement periods beginning on
July 1, 2019 and in subsequent years, we anticipate an increase in the
number of repayment mechanism arrangements CMS will review with each
annual application cycle. We believe the proposed new requirements
regarding the financial institutions with which ACOs establish their
repayment mechanisms would provide CMS greater certainty about the
adequacy of repayment mechanism arrangements and ultimately ease the
process for reviewing and approving the ACO's repayment mechanism
arrangement documentation.
Currently, as described in the program's Repayment Mechanism
Arrangements Guidance, CMS will accept an escrow account arrangement
established with a bank that is insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a letter of credit established at a FDIC-
insured institution, and a surety bond issued by a company included on
the U.S. Department of Treasury's list of certified (surety bond)
companies (available at https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/c570_a-z.htm). We have found that arrangements issued by
these institutions tend to be more conventional arrangements that
conform to the program's requirements. However, we recognize that some
ACOs may work with other types of financial institutions that may offer
similarly acceptable products, but which may not conform to the
standards described in our existing Repayment Mechanism Arrangements
Guidance. For example, some ACOs may prefer to use a credit union to
establish an escrow account or a letter of credit for purposes of
meeting the repayment mechanism arrangements requirement, but credit
unions are insured under the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund
program, rather than by the FDIC. Although the insuring entity is
different, credit unions typically are insured up to the same insurance
limit as FDIC-insured banks and are otherwise capable of offering
escrow accounts and letters of credit that meet program requirements.
We also believe that incorporating more complete standards for
repayment mechanisms into the regulations would provide additional
clarity for ACOs regarding acceptable repayment mechanisms and will
help to avoid situations where an ACO may obtain a repayment mechanism
arrangement from an entity that ultimately is unable to pay CMS the
value of the repayment mechanism in the event CMS seeks to use the
arrangement to recoup shared losses for which the ACO is liable.
Since the June 2015 final rule, several ACO applicants have
requested use of arrangements from entities other than those described
in our Repayment Mechanism Arrangements Guidance, such as a letter of
credit issued by the parent corporation of an ACO, and funds held in
escrow by an attorney's office. In reviewing these requests, we found a
similar level of complexity resulting from the suggested arrangements
as we did with our earlier experiences reviewing alternative repayment
arrangements, which were permitted during the initial years of the
Shared Savings Program until the regulations were revised in the June
2015 final rule to remove the option to establish an appropriate
alternative repayment mechanism. In proposing to eliminate this option,
we explained that a request to use an alternative repayment mechanism
increases administrative complexity for both ACOs and CMS during the
application process and is more likely to be declined by CMS (see 79 FR
72832). Although our program guidance (as specified in Repayment
Mechanism
[[Page 67938]]
Arrangements Guidance, version 6, July 2017) encourages ACOs to obtain
a repayment mechanism from a financial institution, these recent
requests for approval of more novel repayment arrangements have alerted
CMS to the potential risk that ACOs may seek approval of repayment
mechanism arrangements from organizations other than those that CMS has
determined are likely to be most financially sound and able to offer
products that CMS can readily verify as appropriate repayment
mechanisms that ensure the ACO's ability to repay any shared losses.
Therefore, we proposed to revise Sec. 425.204(f)(2) to specify the
following requirements about the institution issuing the repayment
mechanism arrangement: An ACO may demonstrate its ability to repay
shared losses by placing funds in escrow with an insured institution,
obtaining a surety bond from a company included on the U.S. Department
of Treasury's List of Certified Companies, or establishing a line of
credit (as evidenced by a letter of credit that the Medicare program
can draw upon) at an insured institution. We anticipated updating the
Repayment Mechanism Arrangements Guidance to specify the types of
institutions that would meet these new requirements. For example, in
the case of funds placed in escrow and letters of credit, the repayment
mechanism could be issued by an institution insured by either the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union
Share Insurance Fund. The proposed revisions would bring clarity to the
program's requirements, which will assist ACOs in selecting, and reduce
burden on CMS in reviewing and approving, repayment mechanism
arrangements. We welcomed commenters' suggestions on these proposed
requirements for ACOs regarding the issuing institution for repayment
mechanism arrangements.
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for our proposal to
expand the list of institutions with which an ACO may establish a
repayment mechanism to include any insured institution. Some commenters
noted that credit unions may provide ACOs with more economical
repayment mechanism arrangements and could increase market competition,
which could potentially lower the overall cost of accessing repayment
mechanisms. Another commenter expressed appreciation for our proposed
policies on the basis that they would alleviate burden and reduce
barriers to participation for small and rural ACOs.
Several other commenters expressed the belief that ACOs need
repayment mechanism alternatives other than the arrangements that we
addressed in our Repayment Mechanism Arrangements Guidance or proposed
in the August 2018 proposed rule. Some commenters specifically
requested that CMS allow insurance or reinsurance coverage as a
repayment mechanism. A few commenters noted that reinsurance is an
established health care industry standard, and that accepting
reinsurance as a repayment mechanism would encourage more ACOs to
participate in the ENHANCED track. Other commenters noted that some
ACOs already obtain reinsurance in addition to meeting their repayment
mechanism obligations and that CMS should therefore consider
reinsurance to be an acceptable repayment mechanism, as we did in our
November 2011 final rule (76 FR 67979).
Other commenters requested that we to permit ACOs to establish
alternative repayment mechanisms as we did in our November 2011 final
rule (76 FR 67979). These commenters expressed the belief that having
alternative options would facilitate ACO participation in the program.
While the commenters recognized the additional administrative
complexity of permitting ACO to establish alternative arrangements,
they believe that the number of ACOs seeking these such arrangements
would be small, thus limiting the burden on ACOs and CMS during the
repayment mechanism application process.
A few commenters recommended that CMS consider allowing ACOs to
repay losses through reduced payment rates for ACO eligible clinicians,
similar to the MACRA financial risk standards. The commenters believe
that some ACOs would prefer such a method over repaying losses in a
lump sum. These commenters also recommended that CMS remove the
repayment mechanism requirement when an ACO can prove that it has an
investor or financial backer with a demonstrated high credit rating.
Such financial backers could include outside investors, insurers, or
hospitals or health systems that are involved with the ACO and
providing financial support. The commenters believe that the current
repayment mechanism process is time consuming and costly and that this
suggested alternative could reduce those burdens while still protecting
the Medicare Trust Funds.
Response: We appreciate the support offered for our proposal to
expand the list of institutions with which an ACO may establish a
repayment mechanism, as well as the feedback from other stakeholders
recommending that CMS offer ACOs additional options for establishing a
repayment mechanism arrangement. As indicated by some of the
commenters, we originally allowed ACOs to obtain reinsurance coverage
or to establish another appropriate repayment mechanism in the early
years of the program. However, we elected to eliminate those
alternatives in the June 2015 final rule (see 80 FR 32783-32784). We
noted in that rule that no ACO had ultimately established reinsurance
as its repayment mechanism. ACOs that explored that option told us that
it was difficult to obtain reinsurance in part because of insurers'
lack of experience with the Shared Savings Program and the ACO model,
and because Shared Savings Program ACOs take on performance-based risk
rather than insurance risk. Additionally, we indicated that the terms
of reinsurance policies could vary greatly and prove difficult for CMS
to effectively evaluate. We also noted that, based on our experience,
alternative repayment mechanisms increased administrative complexity
for ACOs and CMS during the application process, and were more likely
to be rejected by CMS than one of the specified repayment mechanisms.
While we indicated in the June 2015 rule that we would potentially
consider reinstating reinsurance as a repayment mechanism option at
some point in the future, we did not propose to reinstate either
reinsurance or alternative repayment mechanisms in the August 2018
rule, and we therefore consider these comments to fall outside the
scope of this final rule. We similarly believe that suggestions to
allow ACOs to repay loses through reductions to payment rates or to
waive the repayment mechanism in the presence of a creditworthy
financial backer fall outside the scope of this final rule. We would
need to further evaluate these suggestions before considering whether
to propose them in future rulemaking.
Final Action: After considering comments received, we are
finalizing Sec. 425.204(f)(2) as proposed to specify that an ACO that
will participate in a two-sided model must establish one or more of the
following repayment mechanisms in an amount and by a deadline specified
by CMS in accordance with Sec. 425.204: An escrow account with an
insured institution; a surety bond from a company included on the U.S.
Department of Treasury's List of Certified Companies; or a line of
credit at an insured institution (as evidenced by a letter of credit
that the Medicare program can draw upon).
[[Page 67939]]
d. Advance Notice for and Payment Consequences of Termination
(1) Background
Sections 425.218 and 425.220 of the regulations describe the Shared
Savings Program's termination policies. Section 425.221, added by the
June 2015 final rule, specifies the close-out procedures and payment
consequences of early termination. Under Sec. 425.218, CMS can
terminate the participation agreement with an ACO when the ACO fails to
comply with any of the requirements of the Shared Savings Program. As
described in Sec. 425.220, an ACO may also voluntarily terminate its
participation agreement. The ACO must provide at least 60 days advance
written notice to CMS and its ACO participants of its decision to
terminate the participation agreement and the effective date of its
termination.
The November 2011 final rule establishing the Shared Savings
Program indicated at Sec. 425.220(b) (although this provision was
subsequently revised) that ACOs that voluntarily terminated during a
performance year would not be eligible to share in savings for that
year (76 FR 67980). The June 2015 final rule revised this policy to
specify in Sec. 425.221(b)(1) that if an ACO voluntarily terminates
with an effective termination date of December 31st of the performance
year, the ACO may share in savings only if it has completed all
required close-out procedures by the deadline specified by CMS and has
satisfied the criteria for sharing savings for the performance year.
ACOs that voluntarily terminate with an effective date of termination
prior to December 31st of a performance year and ACOs that are
involuntarily terminated under Sec. 425.218 are not eligible to share
in savings for the performance year. In the November 2018 final rule
(83 FR 59958 and 59959) we finalized revisions to Sec. 425.221(b) to
allow our policies on the payment consequences of early termination to
apply to ACOs participating in a 6-month performance year from January
1, 2019, through June 30, 2019.
The current regulations also do not impose any liability for shared
losses on two-sided model ACOs that terminate from the program prior to
the last calendar day of a given performance year. As explained in the
June 2015 final rule, the program currently has no methodology for
partial year reconciliation (80 FR 32817). As a result, ACOs that
voluntarily terminate before the end of the performance year are
neither eligible to share in savings nor accountable for any shared
losses.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41843 and 41844), we
indicated that the existing policies on termination and the payment
consequences of early termination raise concerns for both stakeholders
and CMS. First, stakeholders have raised concerns that the current
requirement for 60 days advance notice of a voluntary termination is
too long because it does not allow ACOs to make timely, informed
decisions about their continued participation in the program. Further,
we noted that we were concerned that under the current policy, ACOs in
two-sided models that are projecting losses have an incentive to leave
the program prior to the end of a performance year, whereas ACOs that
are projecting savings are likely to stay. Absent a change in our
current policies on early termination, we believed these incentives
could have a detrimental effect on the Medicare Trust Funds.
(2) Advance Notice of Voluntary Termination
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we stated that we were
sympathetic to stakeholder concerns that the existing requirement for a
60-day notification period may hamper ACOs' ability to make timely and
informed decisions about their continued participation in the program.
A key factor in the timing of ACOs' participation decisions is the
availability of program reports. Financial reconciliation reports
(showing CMS' determination of the ACO's eligibility for shared savings
or losses) are typically made available in the summer following the
conclusion of the calendar year performance year (late July-August of
the subsequent calendar year). Due to the timing of the production of
quarterly reports (with information on the ACO's assigned beneficiary
population, and expenditure and utilization trends), an ACO
contemplating a year-end termination typically only has two quarters of
feedback for the current performance year to consider in its decision-
making process. This is because quarterly reports are typically made
available approximately 6 weeks after the end of the applicable
calendar year quarter. For example, quarter 3 reports would be made
available to ACOs in approximately mid-November of each performance
year. These dates for delivery of program reports also interact with
the application cycle timeline (with ACOs typically required to notify
CMS of their intent to apply in May, typically before quarter 1 reports
are available, and submit applications during the month of July, prior
to receiving quarter 2 reports), as applicants seek to use financial
reconciliation data for the prior performance year and quarterly report
data for the current performance year to make participation decisions
about their continued participation, particularly ACOs applying to
renew their participation for a subsequent agreement period.
In the proposed rule, we stated that our belief that adopting a
shorter notice requirement would provide ACOs with more flexibility to
consider their options with respect to their continued participation in
the program. We therefore proposed to revise Sec. 425.220 to reduce
the minimum notification period from 60 to 30 days. Reducing the notice
requirement to 30 days would typically allow ACOs considering a year-
end termination to base their decision on three quarters of feedback
reports instead of two, given current report production schedules.
Comment: We received several comments supporting our proposal to
reduce the notice requirement for voluntary termination to 30 days,
with some commenters noting that this change would allow an ACO to have
more data on which to base its participation decision for the upcoming
performance year. A few other commenters noted that they would support
reducing the minimum notification period if an ACO that complied with
the notice requirement could voluntarily terminate from the program
without financial reconciliation for that year.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' support for this policy and
agree that reducing the length of the notice requirement would allow an
ACO to consider additional information, such as the information
provided in their third quarter feedback reports, when making its
participation decisions for the upcoming performance year and are
finalizing this policy as proposed. As described in the next section of
this final rule, we are also finalizing our proposal, with
modification, to conduct financial reconciliation for voluntarily
terminating ACOs with an effective date of termination after June 30
and, if applicable, to pro-rate any shared losses. This policy for
voluntarily terminating ACOs will be applicable for 12-month
performance years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, delayed from
the original proposed date of January 1, 2019. Under this policy, ACOs
giving at least 30 days advance notice for an effective termination
date on or before June 30 of the performance year will not be subject
to financial reconciliation and will not be accountable for shared
[[Page 67940]]
losses for the performance year in which their termination becomes
effective.
Final Action: After considering the comments received on this
issue, we are finalizing the proposed revisions to Sec. 425.220 to
reduce the minimum notification period for voluntary termination from
60 to 30 days without modification.
(3) Payment Consequences of Termination
In section II.6.d.3 of the August 2018 proposed rule, we discussed
the payment consequences of early termination of an ACO's participation
agreement. We reconsidered the program's current policies on payment
consequences of termination under Sec. 425.221 in light of our
proposal to reduce the amount of advance notice from ACOs of their
voluntarily termination of participation under Sec. 425.220. While we
believed that the proposal to shorten the notice period for voluntary
termination under Sec. 425.220 from 60 to 30 days would be beneficial
to ACOs, we recognized that it might increase gaming among risk-bearing
ACOs facing losses, as ACOs would have more time and information to
predict their financial performance with greater accuracy.
To deter gaming while still providing flexibility for ACOs in two-
sided models to make decisions about their continued participation in
the program, we considered several policy alternatives to hold these
ACOs accountable for some portion of the shared losses generated during
the performance year in which they terminate their participation in the
program.
We first considered a policy similar to that used in the Next
Generation ACO (NGACO) Model whereby ACOs may terminate without penalty
if they provide notice of termination to CMS on or before February 28,
with an effective date 30 days after the date of the notice (March 30).
ACOs that terminate after that date are subject to financial
reconciliation. These ACOs are liable for any shared losses
determined.\20\ The NGACO Model adopted March 30 as the deadline for
the effective termination date in order to align with timelines for the
Quality Payment Program. Specifically, this date ensures that
clinicians affiliated with a terminating NGACO will not be included in
the March 31 snapshot date for QP determinations. However, while we
acknowledged the merit of reducing provider uncertainty around Quality
Payment Program eligibility, we also recognized that in the early part
of the performance year ACOs have a limited amount of information on
which to base termination decisions. We noted that we are especially
concerned that holding ACOs accountable for full shared losses may lead
many organizations to leave the program early in the performance year,
including those that would have ultimately been eligible for shared
savings had they continued their participation. Post-termination,
Shared Savings Program ACOs no longer have access to the same program
resources that can help facilitate care management, such as
beneficiary-identifiable claims data or payment rule waivers, including
the SNF 3-day rule waiver. This could make it more challenging for
these entities to reduce costs, possibly offsetting any benefits to the
Medicare Trust Funds from reduced gaming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41845), we
inadvertently stated that the ACOs that terminate from the NGACO
Model with an effective date of termination after March 30 are also
eligible to share in savings. We wish to clarify that ACOs that
terminate from the NGACO Model at any point after the start of the
performance year are not eligible to earn shared savings for that
performance year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the drawbacks of setting an early deadline for ACOs to
withdraw without financial risk, we also considered a policy under
which risk-bearing ACOs that voluntarily terminate with an effective
date after June 30 of a performance year would be liable for a portion
of any shared losses determined for the performance year. We explained
that we believe June 30 is a reasonable deadline for the effective date
of termination as it allows ACOs time to accumulate more information
and make decisions regarding their continued participation in the
program. As is the case under current policy, for eligible clinicians
in an ACO that terminates its participation in a Shared Savings Program
track that is an Advanced APM effective between March 31 and June 30,
we would make QP determinations as specified in our regulation at Sec.
414.1425(b) based on one or more QP determination snapshot periods
(January 1-March 31, and possibly also January 1-June 30). But, in
accordance with our regulations at Sec. 414.1425(c)(5) and (d)(3), an
eligible clinician who would otherwise have received QP status based on
one of those QP determinations would not be a QP or Partial QP for the
year. Instead, those eligible clinicians would be subject to MIPS and
scored using the APM scoring standard (unless they are excluded from
MIPS on some other ground).
We proposed to conduct financial reconciliation for all ACOs in
two-sided models that voluntarily terminate after June 30. We proposed
to use the full 12 months of performance year expenditure data in
performing reconciliation for terminated ACOs with partial year
participation. For those ACOs that generate shared losses, we would
pro-rate the shared loss amount by the number of months during the year
in which the ACO was in the program. To calculate the pro-rated share
of losses, CMS would multiply the amount of shared losses calculated
for the performance year by the quotient equal to the number of months
of participation in the program during the performance year, including
the month in which the termination was effective, divided by 12. We
would count any month in which the ACO had at least 1 day of
participation. Therefore, an ACO with an effective date of termination
any time in July would be liable for 7/12 of any shared losses
determined, while an ACO with an effective date of termination any time
in August would be liable for 8/12, and so forth. An ACO with an
effective date of termination in December would be liable for the
entirety of shared losses. Terminated ACOs would continue to receive
aggregate data reports following termination, but, as under current
policy, would lose access to beneficiary-level claims data and any
payment rule waivers.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41846), we explained that
we believe this approach provides an incentive for ACOs to continue to
control growth in expenditures and report quality for the relevant
performance year even after they leave the program, as both can reduce
the amount of shared losses owed. Increasing the proportion of shared
losses owed with the number of months in the year that the ACO remains
in the program also helps to counteract the potential for gaming, as
ACOs that wait to base their termination decision on additional
information would be liable for a higher portion of any shared losses
that are incurred. This approach also reflects the fact that ACOs that
terminate later in the performance year would have had access to
program flexibilities (for example, the SNF 3-day rule waiver) for a
longer period of time.
We also considered the payment consequences of early termination
for ACOs that are involuntarily terminated by CMS under Sec. 425.218.
Although these ACOs are not choosing to leave the program of their own
accord and thus are not using termination as a means of avoiding their
responsibility for shared losses, we believe they should not be excused
from responsibility for some portion of shared losses simply because
they failed to comply with program requirements.
[[Page 67941]]
Further, as we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule, we believe
it is more appropriate to hold involuntarily terminated ACOs
accountable for a portion of shared losses during any portion of the
performance year. Since involuntary terminations can occur throughout
the performance year, establishing a cut-off date for determining the
payment consequences for these ACOs could allow some ACOs to avoid
accountability for their losses. Therefore, we proposed to pro-rate
shared losses for ACOs in two-sided models that are involuntarily
terminated by CMS under Sec. 425.218 for any portion of the
performance year during which the termination becomes effective. We
proposed that the same methodology as previously described for pro-
rating shared losses for voluntarily terminated ACOs would also apply
to determine shared losses for involuntarily terminated ACOs.
We considered whether to allow ACOs voluntarily terminating after
June 30 but before December 31 an opportunity to share in a portion of
any shared saving earned. However, we decided to limit the proposed
changes to shared losses. While we recognized that this approach might
appear to favor CMS, we noted our belief that ACOs expecting to
generate savings are less likely to terminate early in the first place.
We explained that under the program's current regulations at Sec.
425.221(b)(1), ACOs that voluntarily terminate effective December 31
and that meet the current criteria in Sec. 425.221 may still share in
savings. We note that this provision was subsequently revised in
November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59958 and 59959) to refer to an
effective date of termination of the last calendar day of the
performance year, in order to allow the policies governing the payment
consequences of early termination to apply to ACOs participating in a
6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019.
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we proposed to amend Sec.
425.221 to provide that ACOs in two-sided models that are terminated by
CMS under Sec. 425.218 or certain ACOs that voluntarily terminate
under Sec. 425.220 will be liable for a pro-rated amount of any shared
losses determined for the performance year in which the termination
becomes effective, with the pro-rated amount reflecting the number of
months during the performance year that the ACO was in the program. We
proposed to apply this policy to ACOs in two-sided models for
performance years beginning in 2019 and subsequent performance years.
We also proposed to specify in the regulations at Sec. 425.221 the
payment consequences of termination during CY 2019 for ACOs preparing
to enter or participating under agreements beginning July 1, 2019.
First, as discussed in detail in section II.A.7. of the proposed rule,
we would reconcile ACOs based on the respective 6-month performance
year methodology for their participation during a 6-month period in
2019 in which they are either in a current agreement period beginning
on or before January 1, 2019, or under a new agreement period beginning
on July 1, 2019. We proposed that an ACO would be eligible to receive
shared savings for a 6-month performance year during 2019, if they
complete the term of this performance year, regardless of whether they
choose to continue their participation in the program after the end of
the performance year. That is, we would reconcile: ACOs that started a
first or second agreement period on January 1, 2016, that extend their
agreement period for a fourth performance year, and complete this
performance year (concluding June 30, 2019); and ACOs that enter an
agreement period on July 1, 2019, and terminate December 31, 2019, the
final calendar day of their first performance year (defined as a 6-
month period).
For an ACO that participates for a portion of a 6-month performance
year during 2019 (January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, or July 1,
2019, through December 31, 2019) we proposed the following: (1) If the
ACO terminates its participation agreement effective before the end of
the performance year, we would not reconcile the ACO for shared savings
or shared losses (if a two-sided model ACO); (2) if CMS terminates a
two-sided model ACO's participation agreement effective before the end
of the performance year, the ACO would not be eligible for shared
savings and we would reconcile the ACO for shared losses and pro-rate
the amount reflecting the number of months during the performance year
that the ACO was in the program.
To determine pro-rated shared losses for a portion of the 6-month
performance year, we would determine shared losses incurred during CY
2019 and multiply this amount by the quotient equal to the number of
months of participation in the program during the performance year,
including the month in which the termination was effective, divided by
12. We would count any month in which the ACO had at least one day of
participation. Therefore, if an ACO that started a first or second
agreement period on January 1, 2016, extended its agreement period for
a 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019,
and was terminated by CMS with an effective date of termination of May
1, 2019, the ACO would be liable for 5/12 of any shared losses
determined. If a July 1, 2019 starter was terminated by CMS with an
effective date of termination of November 1, 2019, the ACO would also
be liable for 5/12 of any shared losses determined. An ACO with an
effective date of termination in December would be liable for the
entirety of shared losses for the 6-month performance year.
Second, ACOs that are starting a 12-month performance year in 2019
would have the option to participate for the first 6 months of the year
prior to terminating their current agreement and entering a new
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019. This includes ACOs that
would be starting their 2nd or 3rd performance year of an agreement
period in 2019, as well as ACOs that deferred renewal under Sec.
425.200(e) and are starting a new agreement period in Track 2 or Track
3 on January 1, 2019. We proposed that ACOs with an effective date of
termination of June 30, 2019, that enter a new agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019, would be eligible for pro-rated shared
savings or shared losses for the 6-month period from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, determined according to Sec. 425.609.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41846), we noted that we
believe some ACOs may act quickly to enter one of the new participation
options made available under the proposed redesign of the program. We
explained our view that ACOs that complete the 6-month period of
participation in 2019 should have the opportunity to share in the
savings or be accountable for the losses for this period. However, we
acknowledged that certain ACOs may ultimately realize they are not yet
prepared to participate under a new agreement beginning on July 1, 2019
and seek to terminate quickly. We stated that although we would
encourage ACOs to consider making the transition to one of the newly
available participation options in 2019 in order to more quickly enter
a participation agreement based on the proposed polices, we also did
not want to unduly bind ACOs that aggressively pursue these new
options. We believed the proposed approach would provide a means for
ACOs to terminate their current participation agreement effective on
June 30, 2019, prior to renewing their participation for an agreement
period beginning July 1, 2019, or to quickly terminate from a
[[Page 67942]]
new agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, without the concern of
liability for shared losses for a portion of the year.
In addition to the proposed changes to Sec. 425.221(b) to
accommodate the proposed new requirements governing the payment
consequences of early termination, we also proposed further revisions
to streamline and reorganize the provisions in Sec. 425.221(b), which
we believed were necessary to incorporate the proposed requirements. We
sought comment on these proposals and the alternative policies
discussed in section II.6.d.3 of the proposed rule.
In section II.E.4 of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41899),
we proposed policies to mitigate the impacts of extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances on ACO quality and financial performance.
As part of these proposals, we discussed an approach for mitigating
shared losses for ACOs participating in a performance-based risk track
(83 FR 41903 and 41904). In this discussion, we acknowledged that it is
possible that ACOs that either voluntarily terminate after June 30th of
a 12-month performance year or are involuntarily terminated and will be
reconciled to determine a pro-rated share of any shared losses could
also be affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. In this
case, we proposed that the amount of shared losses calculated for the
calendar year would be adjusted to reflect the number of months and the
percentage of the assigned beneficiary population affected by extreme
and uncontrollable circumstances, before we calculate the pro-rated
amount of shared losses for the portion of the year the ACO
participated in the Shared Savings Program. For example, assume that: A
disaster was declared for October 2019 through December 2019; an
affected ACO had been involuntarily terminated on March 31, 2019 and
will be reconciled for its participation during the portion of the
performance year from January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019. The ACO
is determined to have shared losses of $100,000 for calendar year 2019;
and 25 percent of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries reside in the
disaster area. In this scenario, we would adjust the ACO's losses in
the following manner: $100,000-($100,000 x 0.25 x 0.25) = $100,000-
$6,250 = $93,750, then we would multiply these losses by the portion of
the year the ACO participated = $93,750 x 0.25 = $23,437.50.
We proposed to specify in revisions to Sec. Sec. 425.606(i) and
425.610(i), and in the proposed new provision for the BASIC track at
Sec. 425.605(f), that the policies regarding extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances proposed in section II.E.4 of the August
2018 proposed rule would also apply to ACOs that are reconciled for a
partial year of performance under Sec. 425.221(b)(2) as a result of
voluntary or involuntary early termination. The proposed revisions to
Sec. Sec. 425.606(i) and 425.610(i) also addressed the applicability
of these policies to a Track 2 or Track 3 ACO that starts a 12-month
performance year on January 1, 2019, and then elects to voluntarily
terminate its participation agreement with an effective termination
date of June 30, 2019, and enters a new agreement period starting on
July 1, 2019; these ACOs would be reconciled for the performance period
from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, consistent with the
proposed new provision at Sec. 425.221(b).
Comment: One commenter expressed support for our proposal to pro-
rate shared losses for any ACO in a two-sided model that voluntarily
terminates after June 30 or that is involuntarily terminated by CMS
under Sec. 425.218. The commenter also supported our proposed
methodology for calculating pro-rated shared losses.
Several commenters agreed that an ACO that voluntarily terminates
from the program should be held responsible for repayment of pro-rated
shared losses based on the date of termination; however, they expressed
their belief that an ACO that is involuntarily terminated by CMS should
not be held responsible for any shared losses. They believe that an ACO
that is involuntarily terminated by CMS is willing to continue to
participate in the program and comply with program requirements, and,
therefore, if CMS chooses to terminate any such ACO's participation
agreement, CMS should be the one to absorb any losses.
Response: We appreciate the support for our proposals to pro-rate
shared losses and for our proposed methodology for calculating pro-
rated shared losses. We are finalizing these policies as proposed with
the exception of the date of applicability which, as described below,
is being delayed to performance years starting on or after July 1,
2019.
We disagree with the commenters who believe that an ACO that is
subject to involuntary termination by CMS under Sec. 425.218 should be
unaccountable for any shared losses. Under Sec. 425.218, CMS may
terminate an ACO's participation agreement when the ACO, or its ACO
participants, ACO provider/suppliers or other individuals or entities
performing functions or services related to ACO activities, failed to
comply with one or more program requirements. Accordingly, we believe
that it would be unfair to treat any such ACO more favorably with
respect to the payment consequences of early termination than an ACO
that voluntarily decided to terminate its participation agreement.
Comment: Several commenters requested that we reconsider allowing
ACOs that voluntarily terminate after June 30 (but before December 31)
an opportunity to share in a portion of any savings earned. A few of
these commenters noted that there may be scenarios in which an ACO is
forced to terminate early, and the ACO should not be penalized when
such scenarios occur. Another commenter suggested that we allow an ACO
that terminates early to continue to be eligible to share in savings so
long as the ACO meets the criteria set forth in Sec. 425.221. It was
unclear whether this commenter was expressing support for our existing
policy set forth in Sec. 425.221, regarding an ACO's eligibility to
receive shared savings when the ACO terminates its participation prior
to the end of its agreement period with an effective date of December
31 of a performance year, or whether the commenter believes that an ACO
should be eligible to receive shared savings when it terminates its
participation agreement before December 31 of a performance year so
long as the ACO completes the requisite close-out procedures described
in the current provision at Sec. 425.221(a).
Response: We continue to believe that it is important to maintain
incentives for continued program participation and therefore, we
decline to make any changes to our existing policies regarding the
eligibility of an ACO to share in savings when the ACO voluntarily
terminates its participation agreement. Under the program's current
regulations at Sec. 425.221(b)(1), an ACO that voluntarily terminates
its participation agreement effective on the last calendar day of the
performance year and that meets the criteria in Sec. 425.221 may still
share in savings.
Comment: One commenter opposed our proposal to conduct financial
reconciliation for ACOs in two-sided models that voluntarily terminate
after June 30, stating that it would compel an ACO to assume greater
risk for losses during the year in which it voluntarily terminates. The
commenter also noted that there are significant adjustments to
benchmarks that occur as part of the annual financial reconciliation
that are unknowable to ACOs early in the year, providing limited time
for planning and decision-making regarding program participation. The
commenter further
[[Page 67943]]
stated that most ACOs have invested significant resources to
participate in the program and usually terminate only as a last resort.
Response: We recognize that, in contrast to our current
regulations, our proposed policies regarding the payment consequences
of early termination would place ACOs at risk for shared losses in a
year in which they voluntarily terminate prior to the end of the
performance year. We also recognize that ACOs deciding whether to
terminate early will be required to do so with incomplete information.
While we do not intend to harm ACOs that decide to terminate as a last
resort, we believe that our proposed policies are necessary to
safeguard the Medicare Trust Funds against ACOs potentially gaming
their participation decisions.
Comment: Several commenters, while not expressing general
opposition to requiring a voluntarily terminating ACO to repay a pro-
rated share of shared losses, did disagree with our proposal to use
June 30 as the cut-off date for determining whether an ACO would be
liable, noting that ACOs would not have sufficient information on which
to base a termination decision that early in the year. One commenter
expressed the belief that the proposed date was problematic given 60-
to 90-day lags associated with being able to perform claims-based
analytics and therefore recommended that CMS simply continue the
current practice of not pro-rating shared losses for early termination.
Another commenter noted that an ACO would only have one quarter of
performance year data by that point and would not have yet received its
financial reconciliation report for the prior performance year. This
commenter noted that a June 30 deadline would also conflict with the
performance period for QPs under the Quality Payment Program, which
ends on August 31, thus potentially affecting their ability to qualify
as participating in an Advanced APM. The commenter recommended that CMS
should therefore hold an ACO accountable for shared losses only if the
ACO voluntarily terminates with an effective termination date on or
after August 31.
Commenters also suggested several other different alternatives to
the proposed June 30 cut-off date. Several commenters expressed the
belief that ACOs should have three quarters of data available to them
to make an informed decision about continued participation. A few other
commenters suggested using an effective date of termination for this
policy that is 30 days after the receipt of second quarter data.
Another commenter requested using September 30 as the cut-off date,
noting this deadline would allow ACOs time to fully analyze two
quarters of financial data before making the decision to voluntarily
terminate. Another commenter supported using a September 30 date for
ACOs in their first year under any risk track model and, in particular,
for ACOs in Level C of the BASIC track.
Response: We believe there are trade-offs between allowing ACOs
more time and information to make participation decisions without
penalty and requiring an earlier cut-off date to reduce the risk of
gaming. We continue to believe that the proposed cut-off date of June
30 strikes a balance between these trade-offs. We also acknowledge one
commenter's point that under this policy there may be cases in which an
ACO voluntarily terminates with an effective date after June 30 but
before August 31 would mean that QPs participating in the ACO would no
longer qualify as participating in an Advanced APM even though the ACO
would still be accountable for a portion of any shared losses. However,
we believe that the potential benefits to the Trust Funds outweighs
this concern. For these reasons, we decline to adopt the commenters'
suggested alternatives and are finalizing our proposal to hold ACOs in
two-sided models that voluntarily terminate with an effective date
after June 30 liable for a pro-rated share of shared losses.
Comment: One commenter recommended that CMS take into consideration
whether an ACO had experienced an extreme and uncontrollable
circumstance when applying the proposed policies around payment
consequences of early termination. The commenter requested that the
proposed methodology exclude losses that occur as a direct result of an
extreme and uncontrollable event.
Response: In the November 2018 final rule we finalized our
proposals to extend the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances
policies used for performance year 2017 to performance year 2018 and
subsequent years (see 83 FR 59968 through 59979). In this final rule we
are finalizing additional changes to address how these policies will be
implemented for ACOs that are responsible for pro-rated shared losses
under our new policies governing the payment consequences of early
termination and that experience an extreme and uncontrollable event
during the calendar year in which their termination becomes effective.
Specifically, we will calculate the ACO's shared loss amount based on
the 12 month calendar year, adjusting the shared losses amount to
reflect the number of months and the percentage of the assigned
beneficiary population affected by extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances, before we calculate the pro-rated amount of shared
losses for the portion of the year the ACO participated in the Shared
Savings Program before termination. Accordingly, the policies we are
finalizing regarding the payment consequences of early termination do
in fact consider whether an ACO experienced an extreme and
uncontrollable circumstance during the performance year and the losses
that may have occurred as a result of any such circumstance.
Final Action: After considering the comments received, we are
finalizing the proposals described in this section with modifications
to reflect a new date of applicability. We are amending Sec.
425.221(b) of the regulations to provide that for performance years
beginning on or after July 1, 2019, ACOs in two-sided models with an
effective termination date before the last calendar day of the
performance year that voluntarily terminate under Sec. 425.220 with an
effective date of termination after June 30 or that are terminated by
CMS at any time during the performance year will be liable for a pro-
rated amount of any shared losses determined, with the pro-rated amount
reflecting the number of months during the performance year that the
ACO was in the program.
We originally proposed that the modifications to our policies on
the payment consequences of early termination would be effective for
performance years beginning in 2019. As a result of the delayed date of
applicability, we are not finalizing our proposal to require ACOs under
a two-sided risk model that begin a 6-month performance year on January
1, 2019, and that are involuntarily terminated by CMS to repay a pro-
rated amount of any shared losses determined. However, we are
finalizing our proposal that ACOs under a two-sided model that begin a
6-month performance year on July 1, 2019, and that are involuntarily
terminated by CMS would be required to repay a pro-rated amount of any
shared losses determined. We are finalizing this provision at Sec.
425.221(b)(2)(ii). As reflected in Sec. 425.221(b)(3)(i), we are also
finalizing our proposal that ACOs that start a 12-month performance
year on January 1, 2019, that subsequently terminate their
participation agreement with an effective date of termination of June
30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019,
would be
[[Page 67944]]
eligible for pro-rated shared savings or accountable for pro-rated
shared losses for the 6-month period from January 1, 2019, through June
30, 2019, as determined in accordance with Sec. 425.609.
We are also finalizing our proposal that the amount of shared
losses determined for ACOs that are liable for pro-rated shared losses
due to early termination will be adjusted to account for extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances through revisions to Sec. Sec. 425.606(i)
and 425.610(i) and in the new provision for the BASIC track at Sec.
425.605(f).
7. Participation Options for Agreement Periods Beginning in 2019
a. July 1, 2019 Agreement Start Date and Early Renewal Option
(1) Background From the August 2018 Proposed Rule on Proposals for 6-
Month Performance Years During CY 2019
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41847 through 41849), we
proposed a July 1, 2019 start date for ACOs to enter agreement periods
under the proposed new participation options within the BASIC track and
the ENHANCED track, and a voluntary 6-month extension for ACOs whose
first or second agreement periods expire December 31, 2018 to ensure
these ACOs could continue their participation in the program without
interruption. In conjunction with these proposals, we would also need a
methodology to determine performance for ACOs under two, 6-month
performance years during CY 2019, from January 1, 2019, through June
30, 2019, and from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
We explained that in the November 2011 final rule establishing the
Shared Savings Program, we implemented an approach for accepting and
reviewing applications from ACOs for participation in the program on an
annual basis, with agreement periods beginning January 1 of each
calendar year. We also finalized an approach to offer two application
periods for the first year of the program, allowing for an April 1,
2012 start date and a July 1, 2012 start date. In establishing these
alternative start dates for the program's first year, we explained that
the statute does not prescribe a particular application period or
specify a start date for ACO agreement periods (see 76 FR 67835 through
67837). We considered concerns raised by commenters about a January 1,
2012 start date, which would have closely followed the November 2011
publication of the final rule. Specifically, commenters were concerned
about the ability of potential ACOs to organize, complete, and submit
an application in time to be accepted into the first cohort as well as
our ability to effectively review applications by January 1, 2012.
Comments also suggested that larger integrated health care systems
would be able to meet the application requirements on short notice
while small and rural entities might find this timeline more difficult
and could be unable to meet the newly-established application
requirements for a January 1 start date (76 FR 67836).
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we explained that the
considerations that informed our decision to establish alternative
start dates at the inception of the Shared Savings Program were also
relevant in determining the timing for making the proposed new
participation options available. We explained that postponing the start
date for agreement periods under these new participation options until
later in 2019 would allow ACOs time to consider the new participation
options and prepare for program changes; make investments and other
business decisions about participation; obtain buy-in from their
governing bodies and executives; complete and submit an application
that conforms to the new participation options, if finalized; and
resolve any deficiencies and provider network issues that may be
identified, including as a result of program integrity and law
enforcement screening. Postponing the start date for new agreement
periods would also allow both new applicants and ACOs currently
participating in the program an opportunity to make any changes to the
structure and composition of their ACO as may be necessary to comply
with the new program requirements for the ACO's preferred participation
option, if changes to the participation options are finalized as
proposed.
Therefore, we proposed to offer a July 1, 2019 start date as the
initial opportunity for ACOs to enter an agreement period under the
BASIC track or the ENHANCED track. As described in the August 2018
proposed rule, we anticipated the application cycle for the July 1,
2019 start date would begin in early 2019. We also elected to forgo the
application cycle that otherwise would take place during CY 2018 for a
January 1, 2019 start date for new Shared Savings Program participation
agreements, initial use of the SNF 3-day rule waiver (as further
discussed in section II.A.7.c.(1). of this final rule), and entry into
the Track 1+ Model (as further discussed in section II.F. of this final
rule). We explained that although several ACOs that entered initial
agreements beginning in 2015 had deferred renewal into a second
agreement period by 1 year in accordance with Sec. 425.200(e) and will
begin participating in a new 3-year agreement period beginning on
January 1, 2019 under a performance-based risk track, applications
would not be accepted from other ACOs for a new agreement period
beginning on January 1, 2019. We proposed that the July 1, 2019 start
date would be a one-time opportunity, and thereafter we would resume
our typical process of offering an annual application cycle that allows
for review and approval of applications in advance of a January 1
agreement start date. Therefore, we anticipated also offering an
application cycle in 2019 for a January 1, 2020 start date for new, 5-
year participation agreements, and continuing to offer an annual start
date of January 1 thereafter. We acknowledged that a delayed
application due date for an agreement period beginning in 2019 could
affect parties planning to participate in the Shared Savings Program
for performance year 2019 and that are relying on the pre-participation
waiver. Guidance for affected parties was posted on the CMS website.
See Medicare Shared Savings Program Waivers: Special ACO Pre-
Participation Waiver Guidance for the 2019 Application Cycle (Issued:
August 9, 2018), available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Fraud-and-Abuse/PhysicianSelfReferral/Downloads/2019-Pre-Participation-Waiver-Guidance.pdf.
We also explained that under the current Shared Savings Program
regulations, the policies for determining financial and quality
performance are based on an expectation that a performance year will
have 12 months that correspond to the calendar year. Beneficiary
assignment also depends on use of a 12-month assignment window, with
retrospective assignment based on the 12-month calendar year
performance year, and prospective assignment based on an offset
assignment window before the start of the performance year. Given the
calendar year basis for performance years under the current
regulations, we considered how to address--(1) the possible 6-month
lapse in participation that could result for ACOs that entered a first
or second 3-year agreement period beginning on January 1, 2016, due to
the lack of availability of an application cycle for a January 1, 2019
start date; and (2) the July 1 start date for agreement periods
starting in 2019.
To address the implications of a midyear start date on program
participation and applicable program requirements, we considered our
previous experience with the program's
[[Page 67945]]
initial entrants, April 1, 2012 starters and July 1, 2012 starters. In
particular, we considered our approach for determining these ACOs'
first performance year results (see Sec. 425.608). The first
performance year for April 1 and July 1 starters was defined as 21 and
18 months respectively (see Sec. 425.200(c)(2)). The methodology we
used to determine shared savings and losses for these ACOs' first
performance year consisted of an optional interim payment calculation
based on the ACO's first 12 months of participation and a final
reconciliation occurring at the end of the ACO's first performance
year. This final reconciliation took into account the 12 months covered
by the interim payment period as well as the remaining 6 or 9 months of
the performance year, thereby allowing us to determine the overall
savings or losses for the ACO's first performance year. All ACOs opting
for an interim payment reconciliation, including ACOs participating
under Track 1, were required to assure CMS of their ability to repay
monies determined to be owed upon final first year reconciliation. For
Track 2 ACOs, the adequate repayment mechanism required for entry into
a performance-based risk arrangement was considered to be sufficient to
also assure return of any overpayment of shared savings under the
interim payment calculation. Track 1 ACOs electing interim payment were
similarly required to demonstrate an adequate repayment mechanism for
this purpose. (See 76 FR 67942 through 67944).
This interim payment calculation approach used in the program's
first year resulted in relatively few ACOs being eligible for payment
based on their first 12 months of program participation. Few Track 1
ACOs established the required repayment mechanism in order to be able
to receive an interim payment of shared savings, if earned. Not all
Track 2 ACOs, which were required to establish repayment mechanisms as
part of their participation in a two-sided model, elected to receive
payment for shared savings or to be held accountable for shared losses
based on an interim payment calculation. Of the 114 ACOs reconciled for
a performance year beginning on April 1 or July 1, 2012, only 16
requested an interim payment calculation in combination with having
established the required repayment mechanism. Of these 16 ACOs, 9 were
eligible for an interim payment of shared savings, of which one Track 1
ACO was required to return the payment based on final results for the
performance year. One Track 2 ACO repaid interim shared losses, which
were ultimately returned to the ACO based on its final results for the
performance year.
This approach to interim and final reconciliation was developed for
the first two cohorts of ACOs, beginning in the same year and to which
the same program requirements applied. The program has since evolved to
include different benchmarking methodologies (depending on whether an
ACO is in its first agreement period, or second agreement period
beginning in 2016 or in 2017 and subsequent years) and different
assignment methodologies (prospective assignment and preliminary
prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation), among other
changes. In the August 2018 proposed rule, we expressed concern about
introducing further complexity into program calculations by proposing
to follow a similar approach of offering an extended performance year
with the option for an interim payment calculation with final
reconciliation for ACOs affected by the delayed application cycle for
agreement periods starting in 2019.
To address the implications of a midyear start date on program
participation and applicable program requirements, we proposed to use
an approach that would maintain financial reconciliation and quality
performance determinations based on a 12-month calendar-year period,
but would pro-rate shared savings/shared losses for each potential 6-
month period of participation during 2019. Accordingly, we proposed an
approach for implementing the proposed July 1, 2019 start date that
included the following opportunities for ACOs, based on their agreement
period start date:
ACOs entering an agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, would
be in a participation agreement for a term of 5 years and 6 months, of
which the first performance year would be defined as 6 months (July 1,
2019, through December 31, 2019), and the 5 remaining performance years
of the agreement period would each consist of a 12-month calendar year.
ACOs that entered a first or second agreement period with a start
date of January 1, 2016, would have the opportunity to elect to extend
their agreement period for an optional fourth performance year, defined
as the 6-month period from January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019. This
election to extend the agreement period would be voluntary and an ACO
could choose not to make this election and therefore conclude its
participation in the program with the expiration of its current
agreement period on December 31, 2018. As discussed in section
II.A.7.a.(2) of this final rule, we finalized the 6-month extension and
the related policies for the 6-month performance year from January 1,
2019, through June 30, 2019, in the November 2018 final rule.
An existing ACO that wants to quickly move to a new participation
agreement under the BASIC track or the ENHANCED track could voluntarily
terminate its participation agreement with an effective date of
termination of June 30, 2019, and apply to enter a new agreement period
with a July 1, 2019 start date to continue its participation in the
program. This includes 2017 starters, 2018 starters, and 2015 starters
that deferred renewal by 1 year, and entered into a second agreement
period under Track 2 or Track 3 beginning on January 1, 2019. If the
ACO's application is approved by CMS, the ACO could enter a new
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019. (We would consider these
ACOs to be early renewals.) ACOs currently in an agreement period that
includes a 12-month performance year 2019 that choose to terminate
their current participation agreement effective June 30, 2019, and
enter a new agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, would be
reconciled for their performance during the first 6 months of 2019. As
described in section II.A.5.c.(5).(b). of this final rule, an ACO's
participation options for the July 1, 2019 start date would depend on
whether the ACO is a low revenue ACO or a high revenue ACO and the
ACO's experience with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives.
As described in the August 2018 proposed rule, and section
II.A.5.c.(5).(c) of this final rule, an early renewal ACO would be
considered to be entering its next consecutive agreement period for
purposes of the applicability of policies that phase-in over time (the
weight used in the regional benchmark adjustment, equal weighting of
the benchmark years, and the quality performance standard).
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we considered several
alternatives to the proposal to offer an agreement period of 5 years
and 6 months beginning on July 1, 2019 (made up of 6 performance years,
the first of which is 6 months in duration). We considered whether to
offer instead an agreement period of five performance years (including
a first performance year of 6 months). Under this alternative the
agreement period would be 4 years and 6 months in duration. As
previously described, in section II.A.2. of this final rule in
connection with the discussion of our
[[Page 67946]]
proposal to extend the agreement period from 3 years to 5 years,
program results have shown that ACOs tend to perform better the longer
they are in the program and longer agreement periods provide additional
time for ACOs to perform against a benchmark based on historical data
from the 3 years prior to their start date. Further, the proposed
changes to the benchmarking methodology (see section II.D. of this
final rule) would result in more accurate benchmarks and mitigate the
effects of reliance on increasingly older historical data as the
agreement period progresses. We believed these considerations were also
relevant to the proposed one-time exception to allow for a longer
agreement period of 5 years and 6 months for ACOs that enter a new
agreement period on July 1, 2019.
We also considered forgoing an application cycle for a 2019 start
date altogether and allowing ACOs to enter agreement periods for the
BASIC track and ENHANCED track for the first time beginning in January
1, 2020. We noted that this approach would allow ACOs additional time
to consider the redesign of the program, make organizational and
operational plans, and implement business and investment decisions, and
would avoid the complexity of needing to determine performance based on
6-month performance years during CY 2019. However, our proposed
approach of offering an application cycle during 2019 for an agreement
period start date of July 1, 2019, would allow for a more rapid
progression of ACOs to the redesigned participation options, starting
in mid-2019. Further, we noted that under this alternative, we would
also want to offer ACOs that started a first or second agreement period
on January 1, 2016, a means to continue their participation between the
conclusion of their current 3-year agreement (December 31, 2018) and
the start of their next agreement period (January 1, 2020), should the
ACO wish to continue in the program. Under an alternative that would
postpone the start date for the new participation options to January 1,
2020, we would need to allow ACOs that started a first or second
agreement period on January 1, 2016, to elect a 12-month extension of
their current agreement period to cover the duration of CY 2019.
We also proposed a number of modifications to the regulations text
in order to effectuate the decision to delay the start date to July 1,
2019, and to allow for agreement periods of at least five years as
opposed to 3-year agreement periods. We proposed modifications to the
definitions of ``agreement period'' and ``performance year'' in Sec.
425.20. We proposed modifications to the provision at Sec.
425.200(b)(2) to reflect that the term of the participation agreement
is 3 years and 6 months for an ACO that entered an agreement period
starting on January 1, 2016, that elects to extend its agreement period
until June 30, 2019. We proposed to add a heading to Sec.
425.200(b)(3) to specify that the provision applies to agreement
periods beginning in 2017 and 2018. In addition, we proposed to add a
new provision at Sec. 425.200(b)(4) to specify that, for agreement
periods beginning in 2019 the start date is--(1) January 1, 2019, and
the term of the participation agreement is 3 years for ACOs whose first
agreement period began in 2015 and who deferred renewal of their
participation agreement under Sec. 425.200(e); or (2) July 1, 2019,
and the term of the participation agreement is 5 years and 6 months. We
also proposed to add a new provision at Sec. 425.200(b)(5) to specify
that, for agreement periods beginning in 2020 and subsequent years, the
start date is January 1 of that year and the term of the participation
agreement is 5 years.
In light of the proposed modifications to Sec. 425.200(c) to
establish two 6-month performance years during CY 2019, we also
proposed to revise the regulation at Sec. 425.200(d), which reiterates
an ACO's obligation to submit quality measures in the form and manner
required by CMS for each performance year of the agreement period, to
address the quality reporting requirements for ACOs participating in a
6-month performance year during CY 2019.
We sought comment on these proposals and the related
considerations, as well as the alternatives considered.
(2) Background on the November 2018 Final Rule Establishing a Voluntary
6-Month Performance Year From January 1, 2019, Through June 30, 2019
for Eligible ACOs
In the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59941 through 59959), we
finalized a voluntary 6-month extension for ACOs that entered a first
or second agreement period beginning on January 1, 2016, whose
agreement periods would otherwise expire December 31, 2018. We also
adopted a methodology for determining financial and quality performance
for the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30,
2019, in a new section of the regulations at Sec. 425.609. Under this
methodology, we will perform reconciliation for ACOs that extend their
agreement period for the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, based on the ACO's performance during the entire
12-month calendar year, and then pro-rate the calendar year shared
savings or shared losses to reflect the ACO's participation in that 6-
month period.
We also finalized certain changes to the program's regulations to
establish the 6-month extension and to make certain technical and
conforming changes. We finalized as proposed the modifications to the
definition of ``agreement period'' in Sec. 425.20 to broaden the
definition to generally refer to the term of the participation
agreement and the revisions to Sec. 425.200(a) to allow for agreement
periods greater than 3 years. We also finalized our proposal to add a
provision at Sec. 425.200(b)(2) specifying that the term of the
participation agreement is 3 years and 6 months for an ACO that entered
an agreement period starting on January 1, 2016, that elects to extend
its agreement period until June 30, 2019.
We also finalized as proposed the revision to the definition of
``performance year'' in Sec. 425.20 to mean the 12-month period
beginning on January 1 of each year during the agreement period, unless
otherwise specified in Sec. 425.200(c) or noted in the participation
agreement. Therefore, we also finalized the proposed revisions to Sec.
425.200(c) to make necessary formatting changes and specify an
additional exception to the definition of performance year as a 12-
month period. Specifically, we finalized our proposal to add a
provision specifying that for an ACO that entered a first or second
agreement period with a start date of January 1, 2016, and that elects
to extend its agreement period by a 6-month period, the ACO's fourth
performance year is the 6-month period between January 1, 2019, and
June 30, 2019.
In light of the modifications we finalized to Sec. 425.200(c) to
establish a 6-month performance year during CY 2019, we also finalized
the proposed revisions to the regulation at Sec. 425.200(d), which
reiterates an ACO's obligation to submit quality measures in the form
and manner required by CMS for each performance year of the agreement
period, to address the quality reporting requirements for ACOs
participating in the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019. We noted that ACOs electing the voluntary 6-
month extension will be required to report quality measures for the
2019 reporting period, based on CY 2019, consistent with the existing
quality reporting process and methodology.
[[Page 67947]]
(3) Establishing a July 1, 2019 Start Date and Early Renewal Option
In the following discussion, we address the comments we received on
our proposal to allow for a July 1, 2019 agreement start date, as well
as the alternatives we considered to this proposed approach. We also
address comments we received on the proposed early renewal option that
would allow ACOs currently in an agreement period that includes a 12-
month performance year 2019 that choose to terminate their current
participation agreement effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, to be reconciled for their
performance during the first 6 months of 2019. We described these
proposals in section II.A.7.a.(1) of this final rule.
Comment: Some commenters supported the proposed approach of
offering a July 1, 2019 agreement start date, indicating the importance
of providing ACOs the opportunity to begin or continue their
participation in the program. Some commenters expressed their
disappointment that the delay in rulemaking prevented a new cohort of
ACOs from starting on January 1, 2019, and indicated that many ACOs
have been eagerly awaiting application details and are prepared to
participate in 2019. These commenters explained that while the timing
will present challenges, such as a compressed timeline to analyze
program changes, review application materials, make decisions regarding
participation and gather all of the required information to submit
applications, it is critical that CMS continue to offer a participation
option for 2019. One commenter explained that given the interconnected
relationship between the Shared Savings Program and the Quality Payment
Program, it is crucial that CMS policy development not inadvertently
deter ACOs from transitioning to risk in 2019.
Of the commenters addressing the timing for implementation of the
redesigned participation options, many commenters urged CMS to
implement the redesigned participation options under the BASIC track
and the ENHANCED track for agreement periods beginning on January 1,
2020 and in subsequent years. Many of these commenters suggested
allowing ACOs whose agreement periods expire on December 31, 2018, a
12-month extension instead of a 6-month extension.
Commenters expressed the following concerns with the proposed July
1, 2019 start date:
Commenters raised concerns regarding the approach for
determining performance for the two, 6-month performance years, as
summarized elsewhere in section II.A.7 of this final rule. Some
commenters expressed concerns about the complexity caused by ACOs
being reconciled under two different methodologies for each 6-month
performance year during CY 2019, with some ACOs operating under
current program rules and others operating under new program rules.
One commenter stated that the proposed July 1, 2019 start date, if
implemented, would add confusion and make the program less
predictable for participating providers whose prior experience with
the program has been based on full calendar year performance
periods.
Some commenters expressed concerns about rapid
implementation of the proposed redesigned participation options. One
commenter explained that in past experience when CMS has rushed the
application period and start date it has resulted in implementation
issues. One commenter pointed to the significant changes proposed to
the program, and the lateness of the proposed rule as reasons to
move the start date from July 1, 2019, to January 1, 2020. Several
commenters suggested that CMS should ensure there is enough time for
CMS and participants to consider the participation options, and
prepare for an application cycle after the final rule is finalized.
A few commenters requested that CMS delay the implementation of the
redesigned participation options under the BASIC track and the
ENHANCED track until January 1, 2020, if CMS is not ready to
implement the new participation options for a July 1, 2019 start
date.
Another commenter suggested allowing at least a 6-month
preparation period for the application cycle after publication of
the final rule so that ACOs and ACO participants can adequately
prepare and successfully implement any changes adopted in the final
rule.
Several commenters expressed concerns about the timing
of a mid-year start date, because ACOs would have limited data about
their performance during performance year 2018, and the first 6-
months of 2019 (if applicable).
One commenter stated that a July 1, 2019 start date
would result in only six months to improve performance.
Commenters explained that the advantages of a January 1, 2020
start date included the following:
Allowing additional time for ACOs and program
stakeholders to assess the policy changes and for ACOs, ACO
participants and ACO providers/suppliers to make participation
decisions to maximize their financial and quality outcomes. One
commenter explained that CMS and program stakeholders will need time
to disseminate information to physicians.
Giving new ACOs adequate time to form and to review
participation criteria.
Allowing CMS additional time to ensure smooth and
effective implementation of the significant changes that were
proposed in the August 2018 proposed rule.
Avoiding the complexity of the July 1, 2019 start date
and the methodology for determining performance for the two, 6-month
performance years during CY 2019. One commenter explained a January
2020 start date was preferable because it would give ACOs the
opportunity to succeed under the new participation options for a
full 12-month performance year, as opposed to requiring these ACOs
to participate in two partial years under 2 different methodologies.
Allowing ACOs entering performance-based risk models
additional time to prepare their repayment mechanism arrangements,
including to raise capital for their repayment mechanism.
Other commenters more generally urged CMS to slow the pace of
regulatory change for the Shared Savings Program. One commenter
explained that early adopters of the Shared Savings Program have
expressed dissatisfaction with CMS' repeated changes to the program
requirements and structure, which the commenter describes as burdensome
particularly for rural and small health systems. One commenter
expressed their appreciation for the changes to date implemented by CMS
throughout the Medicare program to meaningfully reduce provider burden
and allow providers to spend more time with patients. However, the
commenter expressed their belief that implementing new Shared Savings
Program participation agreements under such an accelerated timeframe
does not align with these other welcomed reductions in provider burden
or with CMS' goals of strengthening and stabilizing the Shared Savings
Program.
Response: We appreciate commenters' support for the proposed one-
time, July 1, 2019 agreement period start date. This mid-year start
date would allow for continuity in participation by ACOs whose
agreement periods expire December 31, 2018, that elect to voluntarily
extend their current agreement period for the 6-month performance year
from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, under the policies adopted
in the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59942 through 59946), without
requiring additional rulemaking to establish an option for a longer
extension. Recently, 90 percent of eligible ACOs with a first or second
agreement period start date of January 1, 2016, whose agreements would
otherwise expire on December 31, 2018, elected to voluntarily extend
their agreements for the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019. We believe this demonstrates a high level of
interest by ACOs in continuing their participation in the program by
preserving their option to renew their participation uninterrupted for
a new agreement period starting on July 1, 2019.
[[Page 67948]]
Further, as discussed in the August 2018 proposed rule, we continue
to believe it is important to create a pathway for ACOs to more rapidly
transition to performance-based risk. Allowing for a July 1, 2019
agreement start date would allow for a more rapid progression to the
redesigned participation options under the BASIC track and the ENHANCED
track, compared to alternatives that would postpone implementation of
the redesigned participation options until 2020 or later. We also
recognize the possibility that there are prospective ACOs that may have
been unable to apply to enter the program given our decision to forgo
an application cycle in CY 2018 for a January 1, 2019 agreement start
date, and a July 1, 2019 start date will allow them to enter the
program sooner.
We refer readers to the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59942
through 59946) for our responses to comments on the length of the
extension available to ACOs whose agreement periods expire December 31,
2018. We believe many of the same considerations discussed in those
responses are relevant in responding to the comments suggesting that we
forgo an application cycle in CY 2019 and offer an initial agreement
start date under the redesigned participation options of January 1,
2020 (necessitating a 12 month extension for ACOs whose agreement
periods expire December 31, 2018). For instance, we believe ACOs whose
agreement periods expire on December 31, 2018, have been weighing their
participation options in advance of applying to renew for a subsequent
agreement period, and will have additional time to make these
determinations during the 6-month extension (if elected). In
particular, ACOs reaching the end of their second agreement period
under Track 1, would already have been weighing their participation
options under two-sided models, given the current requirement that ACOs
transition to a two-sided model by the start of their third agreement
period in the program. In fact, our decision to finalize the 6-month
extension allows ACOs completing their second agreement period in Track
1 to continue participation under their current agreement period and
thereby have additional time under a one-sided model that otherwise
would not have been available to them.
In response to commenters' concerns about the timing of a mid-year
agreement period start date in relation to the availability of
performance results for prior performance years, including performance
year 2018 and the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, we note that we provide ACOs with quarterly and
annual aggregate program reports as well as other tools that they can
use to track and estimate their performance. We educate ACOs on the use
of quarterly program data to predict their financial performance.
Therefore, we believe that ACOs have access to a variety of resources
to assess their performance trends in order to help inform their
participation decisions.
With respect to the commenter's concern that ACOs entering the
program with an agreement period start date of July 1, 2019 would have
only six months to improve performance, we note that such ACOs may take
steps to ensure their readiness to meet the program's objectives in
advance of program entry. Specifically, we believe that ACOs preparing
to enter an initial agreement period starting on July 1, 2019, may wish
to take steps to ensure their operational readiness by implementing
redesigned care processes in preparation to meet the program's goals
beginning July 1, 2019. These steps will assist these ACOs in
succeeding under the approach for determining performance for the 6-
month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019,
which we are finalizing in this final rule, under which they will be
accountable for pro-rated performance during the entire CY 2019.
Further we believe ACOs new to the Shared Savings Program that are
considering participation under the BASIC track's glide path may find
the longer agreement period available with the July 1, 2019 start date
advantageous. With an agreement period spanning 5 years and 6 months,
ACOs that start in the program on July 1, 2019, would gain additional
time in the program under the same historical benchmark prior to
benchmark rebasing. As we previously described in section II.A.2. of
this final rule, ACOs may find the greater predictability of benchmarks
under longer agreement periods to be an advantage. Under our policies
described in section II.A.7.c.(7). of this final rule, ACOs entering
the BASIC track's glide path under a one-sided model, for an agreement
period beginning on July 1, 2019, gain an additional 6-months of
participation under a one-sided model, prior to being automatically
advanced through the glide path. Therefore, eligible ACOs entering an
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, may participate for a total
of 2.5 years (3 performance years) under a one-sided model if they
begin in Level A and transition through each level of the glide path,
or 3.5 years (4 performance years) if the ACO is a new legal entity,
low revenue ACO that enters in Level A, transitions to Level B, and
opts to remain in Level B for an extra performance year before
transitioning to Level E for the remaining years of its agreement
period.
We appreciate commenters' concerns about the possible need for
additional time for CMS to prepare to implement the redesigned
participation options. However, the timeframe for implementing the
initial offering of the redesigned participation options for a July 1,
2019 start date is operationally feasible. We have recently redesigned
our ACO management system, which supports application management
functions among other functions. This management system facilitates our
implementation of the redesigned participation options finalized in
this final rule. The system changes include providing new user friendly
interfaces for ACOs to manage their ACO participant list and list of
ACO providers/suppliers. We have received positive feedback from ACOs
on the functionality of this new system, which includes opportunities
for real-time feedback on the Medicare enrollment status of ACO
participants and streamlined processes. We also note that compared to
the first year of the program where we had 3 application cycles, in
advance of the April 1, 2012, July 1, 2012, and January 1, 2013 start
dates, we will have only two application cycles in CY 2019, in advance
of the July 1, 2019 start date and January 1, 2020 start date.
Furthermore, unlike the first year of the program, we now have
experience with 8 application cycles, and have applied lessons learned
to streamline the process to make it more user friendly and efficient
after each cycle. As a result, we will be able to provide an efficient
and transparent process for ACOs to apply for a new agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019, so that they may begin participation under
the redesigned program options as soon as possible.
On balance, we believe it is important not to delay the
implementation of the redesigned participation options under the Shared
Savings Program, and to offer an opportunity for ACOs to enter the
program or renew their participation for an agreement period under the
new BASIC track or the ENHANCED track beginning on July 1, 2019. While
we recognize that ACOs, ACO participants, and ACO providers/suppliers
will need to adapt to the redesigned program requirements, we decline
commenters'
[[Page 67949]]
suggestions that we delay the implementation of these changes, and
thereby maintain the status quo, in an effort to avoid the burden
associated with what we believe are necessary program changes to drive
ACOs to more aggressively pursue the program's goals of lowering growth
in Medicare FFS expenditures and improving quality of care for Medicare
beneficiaries.
We appreciate commenters' concerns about the potential complexity
of the approach for determining performance for 6-month performance
years during CY 2019, as opposed to an alternative approach that would
allow for implementation of the redesigned participation options for
agreement periods beginning on January 1, 2020, and subsequent years,
which would maintain 12-month performance years. To assist ACOs in
understanding the operational details of participation in a 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, we
anticipate providing education and offering outreach to ACOs through
the various methods available, including guidance documents, webinars,
FAQs and a weekly newsletter.
In sections II.A.7.b. and II.A.7.c. of this final rule we respond
to comments on the specific aspects of the methodology for determining
financial and quality performance for the 6-month performance year from
July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and other aspects of program
participation affected by a 6-month performance year, including
concerns about ACOs participating in two 6-month performance years
during CY 2019.
Comment: One commenter urged CMS to stagger the implementation of
the proposed program redesign, so that it would apply on July 1, 2019,
as proposed only to those ACOs that have been in the Shared Savings
Program the longest, and would go into effect on January 1, 2020, for
organizations that joined the program more recently, and January 1,
2021 for organizations that began in the program in 2018.
Response: We decline the commenter's suggested approach for
staggering the program redesign policies based upon an ACO's experience
within the Shared Savings Program. As discussed previously, we continue
to believe it is important to create a pathway for ACOs to more rapidly
transition to performance-based risk. We note, as explained in section
II.A.2 of this final rule, ACOs within a current agreement period may
complete their current agreement under their existing track (Track 1,
Track 2, Track 3, or the Track 1+ Model). Under the policies we
proposed and are finalizing, these ACOs would be required to renew in
either the BASIC track or the ENHANCED track to continue their
participation in the Shared Savings Program for a subsequent agreement
period. For example, ACOs that entered a first or second agreement
period beginning on January 1, 2016, and that elect the voluntary 6-
month extension for the performance year from January 1, 2019, through
June 30, 2019, would need to renew under the redesigned program
participation options for a new agreement period beginning on July 1,
2019. ACOs with a first or second agreement period start date of
January 1, 2017, or January 1, 2018, would be required to renew in
either the BASIC track or the ENHANCED track to continue their
participation in the Shared Savings Program for a subsequent agreement
period beginning on January 1, 2020, or January 1, 2021 (respectively).
Comment: Several commenters expressed confusion over whether ACOs
may complete their current 3-year agreement period, or if early renewal
for an agreement beginning on July 1, 2019, is mandatory. One commenter
questioned whether the early renewal option includes the 6-month
extension from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019.
Response: We wish to clarify that early renewal is voluntary. Early
renewal does not include a 6-month extension from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, which was finalized in the November 2018 final
rule and is limited to ACOs that entered a first or second agreement
period beginning on January 1, 2016, whose agreement periods would
otherwise expire on December 31, 2018. However, we note that early
renewal will be available for ACOs that begin a 12-month performance
year on January 1, 2019, and voluntarily elect to terminate their
participation agreement with an effective date of termination of June
30, 2019, in order to enter a new agreement period starting on July 1,
2019. As discussed in section II.A.7.b. of this final rule, these early
renewal ACOs would be reconciled for the 6-month performance period
from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, and for the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Comment: A few commenters expressed their support for the
availability of the ACO Pre-Participation Waiver to protect ACO-related
start-up arrangements in anticipation of new participants in the Shared
Savings Program and the proposed redesigned program tracks.
Response: We thank the commenters for their feedback. Comments on
the waivers of fraud and abuse laws are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. However, we note that on August 9, 2018, OIG and CMS
jointly issued special guidance on the start date and end dates of the
ACO Pre-Participation Waiver for the 2019 application cycle. See
Medicare Shared Savings Program Waivers: Special ACO Pre-Participation
Waiver Guidance for the 2019 Application Cycle (Issued: August 9,
2018), available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Fraud-and-Abuse/PhysicianSelfReferral/Downloads/2019-Pre-Participation-Waiver-Guidance.pdf. Complete information on fraud and abuse waivers issued in
connection with the Shared Savings Program is available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Fraud-and-Abuse/PhysicianSelfReferral/Fraud-and-Abuse-Waivers.html. No waivers of any fraud and abuse authorities are
being issued in this final rule.
Final Action: After consideration of the public comments received,
we are finalizing our proposal for a one-time July 1, 2019 agreement
period start date as the initial opportunity for ACOs to enter an
agreement period under the redesigned participation options of the
BASIC track or the ENHANCED track as described in sections II.A.2. and
II.A.3. of this final rule. Further, as described in section II.A.5.c.
of this final rule, we are finalizing our proposals with respect to the
removal of the ``sit-out'' period after termination, and the definition
of ``renewing ACO'' and are revising our regulations to allow an ACO to
terminate its current participation agreement and renew early by
entering a new agreement period without a break in participation. Under
these final policies, ACOs that begin a 12-month performance year on
January 1, 2019, may voluntarily elect to terminate their participation
agreement with an effective date of termination of June 30, 2019, in
order to enter a new agreement period under the new participation
options starting on July 1, 2019.
We are finalizing the proposed modifications to Sec. 425.200(b)(3)
to add a heading to specify that the provision applies to agreement
periods beginning in 2017 and 2018. We are also finalizing the addition
of a new provision at Sec. 425.200(b)(4) to specify that, for
agreement periods beginning in 2019 the start date is--(1) January 1,
2019, and the term of the participation agreement is 3 years for ACOs
whose first agreement period began in 2015 and who deferred renewal of
their participation agreement under Sec. 425.200(e); or (2) July 1,
2019, and the
[[Page 67950]]
term of the participation agreement is 5 years and 6 months. We are
also finalizing the addition of a new provision at Sec. 425.200(b)(5)
specifying that, for agreement periods beginning in 2020 and subsequent
years, the start date is January 1 of the applicable year, and the term
of the participation agreement is 5 years.
We are also finalizing the proposed revisions to Sec. 425.200(c)
to incorporate an additional exception to the definition of performance
year as a 12-month period. We are adding paragraph (c)(3) specifying
that for an ACO that entered an agreement period with a start date of
July 1, 2019, the ACO's first performance year of the agreement period
is defined as the 6-month period between July 1, 2019, and December 31,
2019.
The provision at Sec. 425.200(d), as revised in the November 2018
final rule, reiterates an ACO's obligation to submit quality measures
in the form and manner required by CMS for each performance year of the
agreement period, including as applicable according to Sec. 425.609.
Because the existing language of Sec. 425.200(d), as revised by the
November 2018 final rule, is broad enough to cover the quality
reporting requirements for both 6-month performance years as specified
under Sec. 425.609, no further revision to this provision is required
at this time to reflect our decision to finalize the July 1, 2019
agreement start and the provisions in Sec. 425.609(c) governing the 6-
month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019
(see section II.A.7.c.(4) of this final rule for a discussion of the
related quality reporting requirements).
b. Methodology for Determining Financial and Quality Performance for
the 6-Month Performance Year During 2019
(1) Overview
In this section we discuss our final policies for determining
financial and quality performance for the 6-month performance year from
July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019. We also finalize an approach
for determining performance during the period from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, for ACOs that begin a 12-month performance year
on January 1, 2019, and terminate their participation agreement with an
effective date of termination of June 30, 2019, in order to enter a new
agreement period starting on July 1, 2019. Consistent with our proposal
in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41851 through 41853), the
methodology that we are adopting for making this determination aligns
with the methodology for determining financial and quality performance
for ACOs whose agreement periods would otherwise expire on December 31,
2018, that voluntarily elect to extend their agreement for the 6-month
performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, as
finalized in the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59946 through 59951)
and as specified at Sec. 425.609(b). As we noted in the August 2018
proposed rule, this approach to reconciling ACO performance for a 6-
month performance year (or performance period) during 2019 will not
alter the methodology that will be applied to determine financial
performance for ACOs that complete a 12 month performance year
corresponding to CY 2019 (83 FR 41850). In this section of this final
rule, we also explain that the policies we are adopting require use of
our authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act.
Consistent with the approach taken in the August 2018 proposed
rule, we use two terms, ``6-month performance year'' and ``performance
period'' in discussing the 6-month periods during 2019. We use the term
``6-month performance year'' to refer to the following: (1) The fourth
performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, for ACOs
that started a first or second agreement period on January 1, 2016, and
extend their current agreement period for this 6-month period; and (2)
the first performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31,
2019, for ACOs that enter an agreement period beginning on July 1,
2019. For an ACO starting a 12-month performance year on January 1,
2019, that terminates its participation agreement with an effective
date of termination of June 30, 2019, and enters a new agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019, we refer to the 6-month period from January
1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, as a ``performance period''.
In section II.A.7.b. of the August 2018 proposed rule, we proposed
to use the same overall approach to determining ACO financial and
quality performance for the two 6-month performance years during CY
2019 (the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June
30, 2019, and the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019). We noted that the specific policies used to
calculate factors used in making these determinations would differ
based on the ACO's track, its agreement period start date, and the
agreement period in which the ACO participates (for factors that phase-
in over multiple agreement periods). In the August 2018 proposed rule,
we proposed to specify the methodologies for reconciling these 6-month
performance years during 2019 in a new section of the regulations at
Sec. 425.609.
Under our proposed approach to determining performance for ACOs
participating in the 6-month performance years (or the 6-month
performance period) during 2019, CMS would reconcile the financial and
quality performance of these ACOs after the conclusion of CY 2019. For
ACOs that extended their agreement period for the 6-month performance
year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, or ACOs that
terminated their agreement period early on June 30, 2019, and entered a
new agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, CMS would first
reconcile the ACO based on its performance during the entire 12-month
calendar year, and then pro-rate the calendar year shared savings or
shared losses to reflect the ACO's participation in that 6-month
period. In a separate calculation, CMS would reconcile an ACO that
participated for a 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, for the 12-month calendar year in a similar manner,
and pro-rate the shared savings or shared losses to reflect the ACO's
participation during that 6-month performance year.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41850 and 41851), we
explained this approach would avoid a more burdensome interim payment
process that could accompany an alternative approach of implementing,
for example, an 18-month performance year from July 1, 2019 to December
31, 2020. Consistent with the policies that applied to the 18- and 21-
month performance years offered for the first cohorts of Shared Savings
Program ACOs, such a policy could require ACOs to establish a repayment
mechanism that otherwise might not be needed, create uncertainty over
whether the ACO may ultimately need to repay CMS based on final results
for the extended performance year, and delay ACOs seeing a return on
their investment in program participation, if eligible for shared
savings.
We explained our belief that the proposed approach of determining
performance during a 6-month performance year (or performance period)
based on data for the full 12-month calendar year would allow
continuity in program operations (including operations that occur on a
calendar year basis) for ACOs that have either one or two 6-month
performance years (or performance period) within CY 2019. Specifically,
the proposed
[[Page 67951]]
approach would allow for payment reconciliation to remain on a calendar
year basis, which would be most consistent with the calendar year-based
methodology for calculating benchmark expenditures, trend and update
factors, risk adjustment, county expenditures and regional adjustments.
We also explained that deviating from a 12-month reconciliation
calculation by using fewer than 12 months of expenditures could
interject actuarial biases relative to the benchmark expenditures,
which are based on 12-month benchmark years. As a result, we believed
this approach to reconciling ACOs based on a 12-month period would
protect the actuarial soundness of the financial reconciliation
methodology. We also explained our belief that the alignment of the
proposed approach with the standard methodology used to perform the
same calculations for 12-month performance years that correspond to a
calendar year would make it easier for ACOs and other program
stakeholders to understand the proposed methodology.
As is the case with typical calendar year reconciliations in the
Shared Savings Program, we anticipated results with respect to
participation during CY 2019 would be made available to ACOs in summer
2020. We explained that this would allow those ACOs that are eligible
to share in savings as a result of their participation in the program
during CY 2019 to receive payment of shared savings following the
conclusion of the calendar year consistent with the standard process
and timing for annual payment reconciliation under the program. We
proposed to provide separate reconciliation reports for each 6-month
performance year (or performance period) and to pay shared savings or
recoup shared losses separately for each 6-month performance year (or
performance period) during 2019 based on these results.
In section II.A.7.b.(2). of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR
41851 through 41853), we described in detail our proposed approach to
determining an ACO's performance for the 6-month performance year from
January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019. These policies were adopted in
the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59946 through 59951) and are
specified in paragraph (b) of a new section of the regulations at Sec.
425.609.
(2) Determining Performance for the 6-Month Performance Year From July
1, 2019, Through December 31, 2019
In section II.A.7.b.(3). of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR
41853 through 41854), we described in detail our proposed approach to
determining an ACO's performance for the 6-month performance year from
July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019. Our proposed policies
addressed the following: (1) The ACO participant list that will be used
to determine beneficiary assignment; (2) the approach to assigning
beneficiaries for the 6-month performance year; (3) the quality
reporting period for the 6-month performance year; (4) the benchmark
year assignment methodology and the methodology for calculating,
adjusting and updating the ACO's historical benchmark; and (5) the
methodology for determining shared savings and shared losses for the
ACO for the performance year. We proposed to specify the methodology
for reconciling the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, in paragraph (c) of a new section of the regulations
at Sec. 425.609.
We noted that in determining performance for the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, we would
follow the same general methodological steps for calculating pro-rated
shared savings and shared losses as would apply for the 6-month
performance year from January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019. However,
we noted that, for example, the applicable benchmarking methodology,
which is based on the ACO's agreement period in the program, and
financial model, which is based on the track in which the ACO is
participating, would be different.
We proposed to use the ACO participant list for the performance
year beginning July 1, 2019, to determine beneficiary assignment,
consistent with the assignment methodology the ACO selected at the
start of its agreement period under proposed Sec. 425.400(a)(4)(ii).
As discussed in section II.A.7.c. of the August 2018 proposed rule (83
FR 41855 through 41856), this would be the ACO participant list that
was certified as part of the ACO's application to enter an agreement
period beginning on July 1, 2019.
To determine beneficiary assignment, we proposed to consider the
allowed charges for primary care services furnished to the beneficiary
during a 12 month assignment window, allowing for a 3 month claims run
out. For the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, we proposed to determine the assigned beneficiary
population using the following assignment windows:
For ACOs under preliminary prospective assignment with
retrospective reconciliation, the assignment window would be CY
2019.
For ACOs under prospective assignment, Medicare FFS
beneficiaries would be prospectively assigned to the ACO based on
the beneficiary's use of primary care services in the most recent 12
months for which data are available. We would use an assignment
window before the start of the agreement period on July 1, 2019. As
an example, we noted that we could use an assignment window from
April 30, 2018, through March 31, 2019 (note that the example in the
proposed rule inadvertently included only 11 months and should have
been April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019). Under this approach,
the 3-month gap between the end of the assignment window and the
start of the performance year would be consistent with the typical
gap for calendar year performance years that begin on January 1.
Beneficiaries would remain prospectively assigned to the ACO at the
end of CY 2019 unless they meet any of the exclusion criteria under
Sec. 425.401(b) during the calendar year.
As discussed in section II.A.7.c.(4). of the August 2018 proposed
rule (83 FR 41856), to determine ACO performance during either 6-month
performance year in 2019, we proposed to use the ACO's quality
performance for the 2019 reporting period, and to calculate the ACO's
quality performance score as provided in Sec. 425.502.
Consistent with current program policy, we would determine
assignment for the benchmark years based on the ACO's certified ACO
participant list for the agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019.
For the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, we would calculate the benchmark and assigned
beneficiary expenditures as though the performance year were the entire
calendar year. The ACO's historical benchmark would be determined
according to the methodology applicable to the ACO based on its
agreement period in the program. We proposed to apply the methodology
for establishing, updating and adjusting the ACO's historical benchmark
as specified in proposed Sec. 425.601, except that data from CY 2019
would be used in place of data for the 6-month performance year in
certain calculations, as follows:
The benchmark would be adjusted for changes in severity
and case mix between benchmark year 3 and CY 2019 based on growth in
prospective HCC risk scores, subject to a symmetrical cap of
positive or negative 3 percent that would apply for the agreement
period such that the adjustment between BY3 and any performance year
in the agreement period would never be more than 3 percent in either
direction. (See the discussion in section II.D.2. of the August 2018
proposed rule.)
[[Page 67952]]
The benchmark would be updated to CY 2019 according to
the methodology described under proposed Sec. 425.601(b) using a
blend of national and regional growth rates. (See the discussion in
section II.D.3.(d). of the August 2018 proposed rule.)
For determining performance during the 6-month performance year
from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, we would apply the
methodology for determining shared savings and shared losses according
to the approach specified for the ACO's track under its agreement
period beginning on July 1, 2019: The proposed BASIC track (Sec.
425.605) or ENHANCED track (Sec. 425.610). However, we acknowledged
that some exceptions to the otherwise applicable methodology would be
needed because we were proposing to calculate the expenditures for
assigned beneficiaries over the full CY 2019 for purposes of
determining shared savings and shared losses for the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. We
proposed to use the following steps to calculate shared savings and
shared losses:
Average per capita Medicare expenditures for Parts A
and B services for CY 2019 would be calculated for the ACO's
performance year assigned beneficiary population. Additionally, when
calculating CY 2019 expenditures to be used in determining
performance for the July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019
performance year, we would include expenditures for all assigned
beneficiaries that are alive as of January 1, 2019, including those
with a date of death prior to July 1, 2019, except prospectively
assigned beneficiaries that are excluded under Sec. 425.401(b). We
explained that the inclusion of beneficiaries with a date of death
before July 1, 2019, is necessary to maintain consistency with
benchmark year and regional expenditure adjustments and associated
trend and update factor calculations.
We would compare these expenditures to the ACO's
updated benchmark determined for the calendar year as previously
described.
We would apply the MSR and MLR (if applicable).
++ The ACO's assigned beneficiary population for the performance
year starting on July 1, 2019, would be used to determine the MSR
for one-sided model ACOs (under Level A or Level B of the BASIC
track) and the variable MSR/MLR for ACOs in a two-sided model that
selected this option at the start of their agreement period. In the
event a two-sided model ACO selected a fixed MSR/MLR at the start of
its agreement period, and the ACO's performance year assigned
population falls below 5,000 beneficiaries, the MSR/MLR would be
determined based on the number of assigned beneficiaries as proposed
in section II.A.6.b. of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41837
through 41839).
++ To qualify for shared savings, the ACO's average per capita
Medicare expenditures for its performance year assigned
beneficiaries during CY 2019 must be below its updated benchmark for
the year by at least the MSR established for the ACO.
++ To be responsible for sharing losses with the Medicare
program, the ACO's average per capita Medicare expenditures for its
performance year assigned beneficiaries during CY 2019 must be above
its updated benchmark for the year by at least the MLR established
for the ACO.
We would determine the shared savings amount if we
determine the ACO met or exceeded the MSR, and if the ACO met the
minimum quality performance standards established under Sec.
425.502, and as described in section II.A.7.c.(4) of the August 2018
proposed rule (83 FR 41856 through 41858), and otherwise maintained
its eligibility to participate in the Shared Savings Program. We
would determine the shared losses amount if we determine the ACO met
or exceeded the MLR. To determine these amounts, we would do the
following:
++ We would apply the final sharing rate or loss sharing rate to
first dollar savings or losses.
++ For ACOs that generated savings that met or exceeded the MSR,
we would multiply the difference between the updated benchmark
expenditures and performance year assigned beneficiary expenditures
by the applicable final sharing rate based on the ACO's track and
its quality performance under Sec. 425.502.
++ For ACOs that generated losses that met or exceeded the MLR,
we would multiply the difference between the updated benchmark
expenditures and performance year assigned beneficiary expenditures
by the applicable shared loss rate based on the ACO's track and its
quality performance under Sec. 425.502 (for ACOs in the ENHANCED
track where the loss sharing rate is determined based on the ACO's
quality performance).
We would adjust the shared savings amount for
sequestration by reducing by 2 percent and compare the
sequestration-adjusted shared savings amount to the applicable
performance payment limit based on the ACO's track.
We would compare the shared losses amount to the
applicable loss sharing limit based on the ACO's track.
We would pro-rate any shared savings amount, as
adjusted for sequestration and the performance payment limit, or any
shared losses amount, as adjusted for the loss sharing limit, by
multiplying by one half, which represents the fraction of the
calendar year covered by the 6-month performance year. This pro-
rated amount would be the final amount of shared savings that would
be paid to the ACO for the 6-month performance year or the final
amount of shared losses that would be owed by the ACO for the 6-
month performance year.
We sought comment on these proposals.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns that under the
proposed approach, ACOs participating in the performance year from July
1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, would also be accountable for their
financial performance during the first six months of CY 2019. Several
commenters indicated that ACOs would not have program reports or
sufficient patient data to affect care for their assigned population
during the first six months of CY 2019, during the period prior to the
start of their agreement period. These commenters noted this concern
with respect to ACOs that are entering an initial agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019, as well as ACOs that are currently
participating in the program that make ACO participant list changes
effective for a new agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019. To
address this issue, one commenter suggested that one approach could be
to create a 6-month benchmark comparison that adjusts for the ACO's
participation in a portion of the year, taking into account differences
in expenditures based on seasonality.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' concern that ACOs entering
agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, may have relatively little
data in order to be able to understand and affect change for their
assigned Medicare FFS population for the 6-month performance year, but
would be accountable for the cost and quality of care for this
beneficiary population for the entire 12 month CY 2019. We note,
beneficiaries who are prospectively assigned or preliminary
prospectively assigned to the ACO would have received the plurality of
their primary care services from physicians and other practitioners in
the ACO during the 12 month assignment window. As a result, ACO
participants will have data based on the services they furnished to
these Medicare FFS beneficiaries. Additionally, to assist in addressing
this concern, we will provide aggregate and beneficiary-level data,
consistent with Sec. Sec. 425.702 and 425.704 (respectively), shortly
after ACOs begin the agreement period. We will provide each ACO with an
Assignment List Report identifying the ACO participant and ACO
provider/supplier who provided the most primary care services to an
assigned beneficiary during the assignment window. Further, we will
provide monthly beneficiary-identifiable claim and claim line feed data
files. The first time a beneficiary is included in an eligible ACO's
claim and claim line feed data files we provide 36 months of historical
Part A, B and D data to the ACO.
Additionally, quarterly and annual aggregate reports include
expenditure and utilization trends, and demographic data on the ACO's
assigned population
[[Page 67953]]
will be provided during the performance year. This information should
help ACOs identify the practitioners with data necessary to coordinate
care for their beneficiaries, observe trends in the care for the ACO's
assigned population, and support the ACO's care coordination activities
for its assigned population during the 6-month performance year from
July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
We continue to believe the proposed approach is the most
appropriate methodology for determining an ACO's financial and quality
performance for the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, based on its performance during the entire 12-month
calendar year. This approach maintains alignment with the program's
existing methodology for using 12 months of expenditure data in
determining the ACO's financial performance, and also allows for the
use of a 12-month period for quality measure assessment. Further, this
approach maintains alignment with the methodology we finalized for the
6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019,
in the November 2018 final rule. We therefore decline to adopt the
commenter's suggestion to use an alternative approach of calculating
the benchmark based on a period of other than 12 months, such as 6
months.
Comment: A few commenters suggested that ACOs beginning an
agreement period on July 1, 2019, should participate in an 18-month
first performance year under the new agreement. Another commenter
suggested that CMS allow for 18-month performance years in subsequent
years, as well as for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019.
Response: We decline to adopt the commenters' suggestions that we
allow for an 18-month performance year for ACOs entering agreement
periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years. In the
August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41850 through 41851), we explained our
concerns about using a performance year that is determined based on a
period other than 12 months, and described the challenges with our
experience with the program's initial 21-month and 18-month performance
years for ACOs entering the Shared Savings Program with start dates in
2012. We expressed our concerns that using such an approach might
introduce further complexity into program calculations, and could
require ACOs to establish a repayment mechanism that otherwise might
not be required, adding additional burden and expense. In addition, we
noted that this approach would create uncertainty over whether the ACO
may ultimately need to repay CMS based on final results for the
extended performance year and delay ACOs seeing a return on their
investment in program participation if eligible for shared savings.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns about the potential
burden on ACOs of managing and implementing the necessary modifications
to operational processes to account for two separate beneficiary
populations (derived from two separate ACO participant lists, and
potentially two different assignment windows and assignment
methodologies) in one calendar year, while also meeting program
expectations. Several commenters indicated that the burdens associated
with this approach could result in shared losses and/or possible exit
from the program by ACOs under a two-sided model.
A few commenters expressed this concern, in particular, for ACOs
under the prospective assignment methodology. They explained that while
some beneficiaries will be attributed to the ACO for both performance
periods, there will be a portion of an ACO's beneficiary population
that is assigned for only one performance period. For beneficiaries
assigned for only the first performance period, the ACO would have to
continue to deploy resources to manage this population even after they
are no longer assigned to the ACO. For beneficiaries assigned only in
the second performance period, the ACO would be responsible for costs
incurred in the first half of the year when the ACO had no ability to
manage these beneficiaries' care. As a result, ACOs will have to scale
up resources and infrastructure in order to mitigate the impact on
quality and cost. Moreover, with little influence over beneficiaries'
expenditures outside of the performance period, ACOs could potentially
be at risk for exceeding their benchmark.
To address these concerns, some commenters suggested that CMS use a
single assignment window and beneficiary assignment methodology to
determine an ACO's assigned beneficiary population for the entire CY
2019, including for ACOs that participate in multiple performance years
during 2019, regardless of whether the ACO is in the fourth performance
year of an extended agreement period, the first half of a 12-month
performance year starting on January 1, 2019, or an initial performance
year under the proposed BASIC track or ENHANCED track starting on July
1, 2019. Specifically, some commenters suggested that we use the
assignment window from October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018, for
determining prospective assignment for both 6-month performance years.
These commenters believe this approach to determining prospective
assignment would remove the challenges associated with population churn
and the mismatch between at-risk expenditures and potential savings.
Several commenters made this suggestion as part of describing an
alternative approach under which we would use the ACO participant list
certified by the ACO for the performance year beginning on January 1,
2019, in determining a prospectively assigned population for both 6-
month performance years. However, other commenters urged CMS to allow
ACOs participating in a performance year beginning on January 1, 2019,
to make changes to their ACO participant lists before entering a new
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019. See discussion in section
II.A.7.c.(2). of this final rule.
Response: We agree with commenters' suggestions that for purposes
of determining prospective assignment for the 6-month performance year
from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, it is preferable to use
an offset assignment window from October 1, 2017, through September 30,
2018, rather than a later assignment window, as we originally proposed.
We believe that maintaining the same prospective assignment window for
both 6-month performance years during CY 2019 has a number of
advantages, including avoiding inconsistencies between the performance
year and benchmark year assignment windows, and reducing the potential
differences in the populations assigned to the ACO for each performance
year during CY 2019. We note, however, that ACO participant list
differences between each 6-month performance year could still result in
significantly different assigned beneficiary populations, even when the
assignment window remains the same. Given our desire to offer currently
participating ACOs entering a new agreement period starting on July 1,
2019, an opportunity to make changes to their ACO participant lists
applicable for the 6-month performance year starting on July 1, 2019,
we decline the commenters' suggestion that we use the same ACO
participant list finalized for the performance year starting on January
1, 2019, in determining beneficiary assignment for the performance year
from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Accordingly, for the performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, for ACOs under the preliminary
[[Page 67954]]
prospective assignment methodology, the assigned beneficiary population
would be determined after the end of the performance year, consistent
with how it is currently determined for ACOs under the preliminary
prospective assignment methodology, based on the 12-month calendar year
that corresponds to the performance year. For ACOs under the
prospective assignment methodology the assignment window for the 6-
month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019,
would be the same as the assignment window for the 6-month performance
year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019. Therefore, for ACOs
that participate in both 6-month performance years during CY 2019, if
the ACO maintains the same ACO participant list for all of CY 2019 and
the same beneficiary assignment methodology, then the assigned
beneficiary population for the July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019
performance year would be expected to closely resemble the assigned
beneficiary population for the performance year or performance period
from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019.
However, we also recognize that under the redesign of program
participation options, ACOs entering an agreement period beginning on
July 1, 2019, would have the opportunity to select the beneficiary
assignment methodology that would apply for the 6-month performance
year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and this could
result in the ACO being under a different assignment methodology than
it was under for the first 6 months of CY 2019. In this case, there may
be greater differences in the assigned beneficiary populations for each
6-month performance year for ACOs that participate in both 6-month
performance years, even if their ACO participant list remains similar
or unchanged.
Final Action: After consideration of the public comments received,
we are finalizing, with modifications, the proposed approach for
determining financial and quality performance for ACOs participating in
a 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31,
2019. Our final policies are specified in paragraph (c) of Sec.
425.609.
For ACOs that select a prospective beneficiary assignment
methodology for the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, we plan to use an assignment window from October 1,
2017, through September 30, 2018, to align with the assignment window
used to determine prospective assignment for performance years
beginning on January 1, 2019. This is a modification to our proposal to
use an assignment window reflecting the most recent 12 months of data
available as described in the August 2018 proposed rule. Accordingly,
we are revising the provision at Sec. 425.609(c)(1)(ii)(A) to state
that for ACOs under prospective assignment, the assignment window is
the same as the assignment window that applies under Sec.
425.609(b)(1)(ii)(A) for ACOs under prospective assignment for the 6-
month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019.
As explained in section II.D of this final rule, we are finalizing
our proposed changes to the risk adjustment methodology with
modification. Consistent with our original proposal, growth in
prospective HCC risk scores will be subject to a cap of positive 3
percent, but we are not finalizing our proposal to cap downward
adjustments in these risk scores. Therefore we are making necessary
conforming changes to the provision at Sec. 425.609(c)(3)(i)(A) to
reflect this change.
In addition, in the November 2018 final rule we made certain
clarifying revisions to the introductory text in Sec. 425.609(b).
Accordingly, we are also modifying the introductory text at Sec.
425.609(c) to incorporate similar clarifying revisions.
In summary, we will do the following to determine the ACO's
financial and quality performance during the 6-month performance year
from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019. (Where applicable, we
have identified references to policies we are finalizing elsewhere in
this final rule.)
We will use the ACO participant list for the performance year
beginning July 1, 2019, to determine beneficiary assignment, consistent
with the assignment methodology the ACO selected at the start of its
agreement period according to the provision we are finalizing at Sec.
425.400(a)(4)(ii) (as discussed in section II.A.4.c of this final
rule).
We will use the ACO's quality performance for the 2019 reporting
period to determine the ACO's quality performance score as specified in
Sec. 425.502, and as described in section II.A.7.c.(4) of this final
rule.
We will establish, adjust and update the ACO's historical benchmark
according to the benchmarking policies we are finalizing for agreement
periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years, except that
the benchmark will be adjusted for changes in severity and case mix
based on growth in prospective HCC risk scores between BY3 and CY 2019,
subject to a cap of positive 3 percent, and the benchmark will be
updated to CY 2019. (See section II.D. of this final rule and the new
section of the regulations at Sec. 425.601.) We will compare the ACO's
updated historical benchmark to the expenditures during CY 2019 for the
ACO's performance year assigned beneficiaries.
We will apply the MSR and MLR (if applicable). The ACO's assigned
beneficiary population for the performance year starting on July 1,
2019, will be used to determine the MSR for one-sided model ACOs (under
Level A or Level B of the BASIC track) and the variable MSR/MLR for
ACOs in a two-sided model that selected this option at the start of
their agreement period. The provisions on the MSR/MLR are specified in
a new section of the regulations at Sec. 425.605(b) for the BASIC
track, and Sec. 425.610(b) for the ENHANCED track. In the event a two-
sided model ACO selected a fixed MSR/MLR at the start of its agreement
period, and the ACO's performance year assigned population falls below
5,000 beneficiaries, the MSR/MLR will be determined based on the number
of assigned beneficiaries, according to the approach we are finalizing
at Sec. 425.110(b)(3), as discussed in section II.A.6.b.(3). of this
final rule.
If the difference between the ACO's updated benchmark and assigned
beneficiary expenditures is positive and is greater than or equal to
the MSR and the ACO has met the quality performance standard, the ACO
will be eligible for shared savings. If the ACO is in a two-sided model
and the difference between the ACO's updated benchmark and assigned
beneficiary expenditures is negative and is greater than or equal to
the MLR (in absolute value terms), the ACO will be liable for shared
losses. ACOs will share in first dollar savings and losses. The amount
of any shared savings will be determined using the applicable final
sharing rate, which is determined based on the ACO's track for the
agreement period (and the payment model within that track, if
applicable) and taking into account the ACO's quality performance for
2019. We will adjust the amount of shared savings for sequestration,
and then cap the amount of shared savings at the applicable performance
payment limit for the ACO's track. Similarly, the amount of any shared
losses will be determined using the loss sharing rate for the ACO's
track and, as applicable, for ACOs in tracks with a loss sharing rate
that depends upon quality performance, the ACO's quality performance
for 2019. We will then cap the amount of shared losses at the
[[Page 67955]]
applicable loss sharing limit for the ACO's track (and the payment
model within that track, if applicable). We will then pro-rate the
amount of shared savings or shared losses by multiplying by one-half,
which represents the fraction of the calendar year covered by the 6-
month performance year. This pro-rated amount is the final amount of
shared savings earned or shared losses owed by the ACO for the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
(3) Determining Performance for the 6-Month Performance Period From
January 1, 2019, Through June 30, 2019, for Early Renewals
Under the policies we are finalizing in this final rule to remove
the ``sit-out'' period after termination (see section II.A.5.c. of this
final rule) and to allow for a July 1, 2019 agreement start date (see
section II.A.7.a. of this final rule), ACOs that begin a 12-month
performance year on January 1, 2019, may voluntarily elect to terminate
their participation agreement with an effective date of termination of
June 30, 2019, in order to enter a new agreement period starting on
July 1, 2019 (referred to as early renewal). Under the changes that we
are finalizing to our policies governing the payment consequences of
early termination at Sec. 425.221, ACOs with an effective date of
termination of June 30, 2019, that enter a new agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019, will be eligible for pro-rated shared
savings or liable for pro-rated shared losses for the 6-month period
from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, determined according to
Sec. 425.609.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41849 and 41850), we
proposed to determine performance for the 6-month performance period
from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, for ACOs renewing early
for a July 1, 2019 agreement start date, using the same methodology as
would be used to determine an ACO's performance for the 6-month
performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019. In the
November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59946 through 59951), we finalized the
methodology for determining an ACO's performance for this 6-month
performance year in a new provision of the regulations at Sec.
425.609(b). In the August 2018 proposed rule, we described the
applicability of certain aspects of this methodology to early renewal
ACOs for the 6-month performance period from January 1, 2019, through
June 30, 2019. We noted that the approach for determining beneficiary
assignment, and for adjusting and updating the historical benchmark for
the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30,
2019, would be consistent with the assignment and benchmarking
methodologies in the program's regulations applicable for performance
years beginning on January 1, 2019. Therefore, these policies would
similarly apply to determining performance for the period from January
1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, for early renewals. Accordingly, in the
August 2018 proposed rule, we proposed to include a cross reference to
the provision under Sec. 425.221 in the introductory text to Sec.
425.609(b) in order to allow reconciliation of early renewals for the
performance period from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, to be
based on their financial performance during the entire 12-month
calendar year 2019 according to the methodology in the provision at
Sec. 425.609.
In section II.A.7.c. of this final rule we discuss other
modifications that we are making to Sec. 425.609 to address the
applicability of certain policies to ACOs participating in a 6-month
performance year or performance period in 2019. The affected policies
include the following: the quality measure sampling methodology
(section II.A.7.c.(4)); the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances
policies (section II.A.7.c.(5)); payment and recoupment (section
II.A.7.c.(6)); and sharing of CY 2019 aggregate data (section
II.A.7.c.(9)).
Final Action: We did not receive any comments specifically
addressing the methodology for determining financial and quality
performance for the 6-month performance period from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, for ACOs that terminate their agreement
effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period starting on
July 1, 2019. Therefore, we are finalizing without modification our
proposal to determine performance for the 6-month performance period
from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, for ACOs renewing early
for the July 1, 2019 agreement start date, by applying the same
methodology as is used to determine an ACO's performance for the 6-
month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019
(finalized at Sec. 425.609(b) in the November 2018 final rule). We are
also finalizing revisions to the introductory text at Sec. 425.609(b)
to incorporate a reference to the provision at Sec. 425.221(b)(3)(i),
which specifies that an ACO starting a 12-month performance year on
January 1, 2019, that terminates its participation agreement with an
effective date of termination of June 30, 2019, and that enters a new
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, is eligible for pro-rated
shared savings or liable for pro-rated shared losses for the 6-month
period from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, as determined in
accordance with Sec. 425.609.
(4) Use of Authority Under Section 1899(i)(3) of the Act
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41851), we explained our
belief that the proposals to determine shared savings and shared losses
for the 6-month performance years starting on January 1, 2019, and July
1, 2019 (or the 6-month performance period from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, for ACOs that elect to voluntarily terminate
their existing participation agreement, effective June 30, 2019, and
enter a new agreement period starting on July 1, 2019), using
expenditures for the entire CY 2019 and then pro-rating these amounts
to reflect the shorter performance year, require the use of our
authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act to use other payment
models. Section 1899(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act specifies that, in each
year of the agreement period, an ACO is eligible to receive payment for
shared savings only if the estimated average per capita Medicare
expenditures under the ACO for Medicare FFS beneficiaries for Parts A
and B services, adjusted for beneficiary characteristics, is at least
the percent specified by the Secretary below the applicable benchmark
under section 1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. We explained our belief
that the proposed approach to calculating the expenditures for assigned
beneficiaries over the full calendar year, comparing this amount to the
updated benchmark for 2019, and then pro-rating any shared savings (or
shared losses, which already are implemented using our authority under
section 1899(i)(3) of the Act) for the 6-month performance year (or
performance period) involves an adjustment to the estimated average per
capita Medicare Part A and Part B FFS expenditures determined under
section 1899(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act that is not based on beneficiary
characteristics. Such an adjustment is not contemplated under the plain
language of section 1899(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. As a result, we stated
it would be necessary to use our authority under section 1899(i)(3) of
the Act to calculate performance year expenditures and determine the
final amount of any shared savings (or shared losses) for a 6-month
performance year (or performance period) during 2019, in the proposed
manner.
In order to use our authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act
to adopt an
[[Page 67956]]
alternative payment methodology to calculate shared savings and shared
losses for a 6-month performance year (or performance period) during
2019, we must determine that the alternative payment methodology will
improve the quality and efficiency of items and services furnished to
Medicare beneficiaries, without additional program expenditures. In the
August 2018 proposed rule, we explained our belief that the proposed
approach of allowing ACOs that started a first or second agreement
period on January 1, 2016, to extend their agreement period for a 6-
month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, and
of allowing entry into the program's redesigned participation options
beginning on July 1, 2019, if finalized, would support continued
participation by current ACOs that must renew their agreements to
continue participating in the program, while also resulting in more
rapid progression to two-sided risk by ACOs within current agreement
periods and ACOs entering the program for an initial agreement period.
As discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the August 2018
proposed rule (83 FR 41915 through 41928), it was our belief that this
approach would continue to allow for lower growth in Medicare FFS
expenditures based on projected participation trends. Therefore, we did
not believe that the proposed methodology for determining shared
savings or shared losses for ACOs in a 6-month performance year (or
performance period) during 2019 would result in an increase in spending
beyond the expenditures that would otherwise occur under the statutory
payment methodology in section 1899(d) of the Act. Further, we noted
that the proposed approach to measuring ACO quality performance for a
6-month performance year (or performance period) based on quality data
reported for CY 2019 would maintain accountability for the quality of
care ACOs provide to their assigned beneficiaries. Participating ACOs
would also have an incentive to perform well on the quality measures in
order to maximize the shared savings they may receive and minimize any
shared losses they must pay in tracks where the loss sharing rate is
determined based on the ACO's quality performance. Therefore, we noted
our expectation that the proposed approach to reconciling ACOs for a 6-
month performance year (or performance period) during 2019 would
continue to lead to improvement in the quality of care furnished to
Medicare FFS beneficiaries.
In the November 2018 final rule, we finalized the proposed approach
to determining financial and quality performance for the 6-month
performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019. In that
final rule (83 FR 59949 through 59950), we explained our belief that
the approach to determining shared savings and shared losses for this
6-month performance year meets the requirements for use of our
authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act because it will not
result in an increase in spending beyond the expenditures that would
otherwise occur under the statutory payment methodology in section
1899(d) of the Act and will lead to continued improvement in the
quality of care furnished to Medicare FFS beneficiaries.
Similarly, as discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis section
of this final rule (see section V), we believe the approach to
determining shared savings and shared losses for the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, for ACOs
that enter an agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, and for the
6-month performance period from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019,
for ACOs that elect to voluntarily terminate their existing
participation agreement, effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new
agreement period starting on July 1, 2019, meets the requirements for
use of our authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act. The
considerations we described in the August 2018 proposed rule in
relation to the proposed methodology and in the November 2018 final
rule in conjunction with finalizing the methodology for determining
shared savings and shared losses for the 6-month performance year from
January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, were relevant in making this
determination.
Specifically, we do not believe that the methodology for
determining shared savings or shared losses for ACOs in a 6-month
performance year (or performance period), as finalized in this section
of this final rule, will result in an increase in spending beyond the
expenditures that would otherwise occur under the statutory payment
methodology in section 1899(d) of the Act. We believe the following
factors would allow for lower growth in Medicare FFS expenditures based
on projected participation trends: (1) In combination with the
voluntary 6-month extension we finalized in the November 2018 final
rule for ACOs whose agreement periods expire on December 31, 2018, the
July 1, 2019 agreement start date will support continued participation
by these ACOs; (2) the early renewal option for the July 1, 2019
agreement start date could also result in more rapid progression to
two-sided risk by ACOs within current agreement periods; and (3) the
July 1, 2019 start date encourages participation by new ACOs in initial
agreement periods under redesigned participation options in which ACOs
will more rapidly progress to performance-based risk.
Further, we believe the approach we are finalizing for reconciling
early renewal ACOs for the 6-month performance period from January 1,
2019 through June 30, 2019, and for reconciling the 6-month performance
year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, for ACOs that begin
a new agreement period on July 1, 2019, will continue to lead to
improvement in the quality of care furnished to Medicare FFS
beneficiaries. As described elsewhere in this section of this final
rule, the approach to measuring ACO quality performance for the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, or for
the 6-month performance period from January 1, 2019, through June 30,
2019, based on quality data reported for CY 2019, will maintain
accountability for the quality of care ACOs provide to their assigned
beneficiaries. Participating ACOs will have an incentive to perform
well on the quality measures in order to maximize the shared savings
they may receive and minimize any shared losses they must pay in tracks
where the loss sharing rate is determined based on the ACO's quality
performance.
c. Applicability of Program Policies to ACOs Participating in a 6-Month
Performance Year or Performance Period in 2019
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41854), we proposed that
program requirements under 42 CFR part 425 that are applicable to the
ACO under the ACO's chosen participation track and based on the ACO's
agreement start date would be applicable to an ACO participating in a
6-month performance year, unless otherwise stated. We finalized this
approach with respect to ACOs participating in the 6-month performance
year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, in the November 2018
final rule (83 FR 59951). In that final rule, we explained that we
received no comments on this general proposal, which would allow
routine program operations to continue to apply for ACOs participating
under a shorter performance year, and ensure consistency in the
applicability and
[[Page 67957]]
implementation of our requirements across all program participants,
including ACOs participating in a 6-month performance year. For these
same reasons, we are also finalizing this approach with respect to ACOs
participating in the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019,
through December 31, 2019, and the 6-month performance period from
January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019. This approach will ensure
program policies are applied consistently for all ACOs participating in
a 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019
and/or from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and to ACOs that
terminate their agreement effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new
agreement period starting on July 1, 2019.
In this section, we describe the program participation options that
are affected by our decision to forgo an application cycle in CY 2018
for a January 1, 2019 start date, and offer instead an application
cycle in CY 2019 for a July 1, 2019 start date. We also discuss
modifications to program policies to allow for the 6-month performance
period from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019 for early renewal
ACOs, and the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 30, 2019. These modifications include updates to the existing
provisions in Sec. 425.609, which were initially established for the
6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019,
to extend them to the 6-month performance period from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, and the 6-month performance year from July 1,
2019, through December 30, 2019.
(1) Application Cycle for Use of a SNF 3-Day Rule Waiver Beginning July
1, 2019
Eligible ACOs may apply for use of a SNF 3-day rule waiver at the
time of application for an initial agreement or to renew their
participation. Further, as described in sections II.B.2.a. and II.F. of
this final rule, ACOs within a current agreement period under Track 3,
or the Track 1+ Model may apply for a SNF 3-day rule waiver, which if
approved would begin at the start of the next performance year. As
discussed in section II.B.2.a. of this final rule, we are finalizing
our proposal to make the SNF 3-day rule waiver under the Shared Savings
Program more broadly available to BASIC track ACOs (under a two-sided
model) and ENHANCED track ACOs, regardless of their choice of
beneficiary assignment methodology.
As described in the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59951), in
light of our decision to forgo an application cycle in CY 2018 for a
January 1, 2019 agreement start date, we are not offering an
opportunity for ACOs to apply for a start date of January 1, 2019, for
initial use of a SNF 3-day rule waiver. The application cycle for the
July 1, 2019 start date will be the next opportunity for eligible ACOs
to begin use of a SNF 3-day rule waiver, if they apply for and are
approved to use the waiver as part of the application cycle for the
July 1, 2019 start date. This includes ACOs within an existing
agreement period in Track 3 that would not otherwise have the
opportunity to apply to begin use of the waiver until January 1, 2020.
We note that the existing regulation at Sec. 425.612(b), which
requires applications for waivers to be submitted to CMS in the form
and manner and by a deadline specified by CMS, provides the flexibility
to accommodate a July 1, 2019 SNF 3-day rule waiver start date for
eligible ACOs in a performance year beginning on January 1, 2019. As a
result, we do not need to make any corresponding revisions to this
provision to accommodate the July 1, 2019 start date.
Final Action: We received generally supportive comments for our SNF
3-day rule waiver proposals, and we point readers to the related
discussion in section II.B.2.a. of this final rule. We are finalizing
without modification our proposal to offer ACOs within existing
agreement periods in Track 3 and the Track 1+ Model the opportunity to
apply to begin use of a SNF 3-day rule waiver as part of the
application cycle for the July 1, 2019 start date.
(2) Annual Certifications and ACO Participant List Modifications
At the end of each performance year, ACOs complete an annual
certification process. At the same time as this annual certification
process, CMS also requires ACOs to review, certify and electronically
sign official program documents to support the ACO's participation in
the upcoming performance year. As we stated in the August 2018 proposed
rule (83 FR 41855), and reiterated in the November 2018 final rule (83
FR 59951 and 59952), requirements for this annual certification, and
other certifications that occur on an annual basis, continue to apply
to all currently participating ACOs in advance of the performance year
beginning on January 1, 2019.
As we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41855), in
the case of ACOs that participate for a portion of CY 2019 under one
agreement and enter a new agreement period starting on July 1, 2019,
the certifications made in advance of the performance year starting on
January 1, 2019, would have relevance only for the 6-month period from
January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019. These ACOs would need to
complete another certification as part of completing the requirements
to enter a new agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, which would
be applicable for the duration of their first performance year under
the new agreement period, from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Each ACO is required to certify its list of ACO participant TINs
before the start of its agreement period, before every performance year
thereafter, and at such other times as specified by CMS in accordance
with Sec. 425.118(a). A request to add ACO participants must be
submitted prior to the start of the performance year in which these
additions would become effective. In order to remove an ACO
participant, an ACO must notify CMS no later than 30 days after
termination of an ACO participant agreement, and the entity is deleted
from the ACO participant list effective as of the termination date of
the ACO participant agreement. However, absent unusual circumstances,
the ACO participant list that was certified prior to the start of the
performance year is used for the duration of the performance year. An
ACO's certified ACO participant list for a performance year is used to
determine beneficiary assignment for the performance year and therefore
also the ACO's quality reporting samples and financial performance. See
Sec. 425.118(b)(3) and see also Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO
Participant List and Participant Agreement Guidance (July 2018, version
5), available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/ACO-Participant-List-Agreement.pdf. As we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule, these
policies would apply for ACOs participating in a 6-month performance
year consistent with the terms of the existing regulations.
As we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41855) and
reiterated in the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59952), ACOs that
started a first or second agreement period on January 1, 2016, that
extend their agreement period for a 6-month performance year beginning
on January 1, 2019, will have the opportunity during 2018 to make
changes to their ACO participant list to be effective for the 6-month
performance year from
[[Page 67958]]
January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019. If these ACOs elect to continue
their participation in the program for a new agreement period starting
on July 1, 2019, they would have an opportunity to submit a new ACO
participant list as part of their renewal application for the July 1,
2019 start date.
An ACO that enters a new agreement period beginning on July 1,
2019, will submit and certify its ACO participant list for the
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, according to the
requirements in Sec. 425.118(a). The ACO's approved ACO participant
list will remain in effect for the full performance year from July 1,
2019, through December 31, 2019. These ACOs will have the opportunity
to add or delete ACO participants prior to the start of the next
performance year, following the established schedule. Any additions to
the ACO participant list that are approved by CMS will become effective
at the start of performance year 2020.
The program's current regulations prevent duplication of shared
savings payments; thus, under Sec. 425.114, ACOs may not participate
in the Shared Savings Program if they include an ACO participant that
participates in another Medicare initiative that involves shared
savings. In addition, under Sec. 425.306(b)(2), each ACO participant
that submits claims for services used to determine the ACO's assigned
beneficiary population must be exclusive to one Shared Savings Program
ACO. If, during a benchmark or performance year (including the 3-month
claims run out for such benchmark or performance year), an ACO
participant that participates in more than one ACO submits claims for
services used in assignment, CMS will not consider any services billed
through the TIN of the ACO participant when performing assignment for
the benchmark or performance year, and the ACO may be subject to the
pre-termination actions set forth in Sec. 425.216, termination under
Sec. 425.218, or both.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41855 and 41856), we noted
the following examples regarding ACO participants that submit claims
for services that are used in assignment, and that are participating in
a Shared Savings Program ACO for a 12-month performance year during
2019 (such as a 2017 starter, 2018 starter, or 2015 starter that
deferred renewal until 2019).
If the ACO remains in the program under its current agreement past
June 30, 2019, these ACO participants would not be eligible to be
included on the ACO participant list of another ACO applying to enter a
new agreement period under the program beginning on July 1, 2019. An
ACO participant in these circumstances could be added to the ACO
participant list of a July 1, 2019 starter effective for the
performance year beginning on January 1, 2020, only if it is no longer
participating in the other Shared Savings Program ACO and is not
participating in another initiative identified in Sec. 425.114(a).
If an ACO starting a 12-month performance year on January 1, 2019,
terminates its participation agreement with an effective date of
termination of June 30, 2019, the effective end date of the ACO
participants' participation would also be June 30, 2019. Such ACOs that
elect to enter a new agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, can
make ACO participant list changes that would be applicable for their
new agreement period. This means that the ACO participants of the
terminating ACO could choose to be added to the ACO participant list of
another July 1, 2019 starter, effective for the performance year
beginning on July 1, 2019.
Comment: Some commenters urged CMS to provide ACOs with
opportunities to add and delete ACO participants throughout the
performance years (or performance period) during 2019 and to clarify
when such opportunities would be available. One commenter encouraged
CMS to allow ACO participants to switch ACOs effective for the July 1,
2019 agreement start date, even if the ACO participant is in an ACO
with an existing participation agreement that expires after July 1,
2019.
Response: As we described in the August 2018 proposed rule, an ACO
that enters a new agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, would
submit and certify its ACO participant list before July 1, 2019,
according to the existing requirements in Sec. 425.118(a). We do not
believe it is operationally feasible to allow, as the commenters
suggest, ACOs within a 12-month performance year beginning on January
1, 2019, to make ACO participant list changes effective for the second
half of the year, unless the ACO is an early renewal ACO that elects to
voluntarily terminate its existing participation agreement, effective
June 30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period starting on July 1,
2019. For ACOs participating in a 12-month performance year during
2019, such mid-year changes to their ACO participant lists would alter
the 2019 prospective assignment lists (if applicable), and may have
other significant operational impacts (such as on benchmark
calculations). Therefore, we will allow ACOs to submit ACO participant
change requests in accordance with usual program procedures in order to
indicate additions, updates, and deletions to their existing ACO
participant lists and, if applicable, SNF affiliate lists at the
following times: During 2018, in advance of a 12-month or 6-month
performance year beginning on January 1, 2019; and as part of the
application cycle for a July 1, 2019 agreement start date for ACOs
applying to enter, renew or re-enter an agreement period in the Shared
Savings Program.
Comment: More generally, a few commenters suggest that there is a
lost opportunity for ACO participants to collaborate if some join an
ACO for the 6-month performance year beginning on July 1, 2019, and
other ACO participants are added to the same ACO for the performance
year beginning on January 1, 2020.
Response: Although it is possible that ACOs with a July 1, 2019
agreement start date may be precluded from adding certain providers and
suppliers to their ACO participant list for the 6-month performance
year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, because they are
already participating in another ACO, there will be only a short amount
of time before the ACO may modify its ACO participant list for the
performance year beginning January 1, 2020, to include these entities.
In addition, this initial 6-month performance year will give the
original ACO participants time to gain experience with the ACO and its
selected payment track before additional ACO participants are added at
the start of performance year 2020. We also note that ACO participant
list additions are optional. We encourage ACOs to carefully consider
the impact of modifying their ACO participant lists, given the
potential impact of these changes on a variety of program operations,
including assignment, the ACO's historical benchmark, performance-year
financial calculations, and the quality reporting sample.
(3) Repayment Mechanism Requirements
ACOs must demonstrate that they have in place an adequate repayment
mechanism prior to entering a two-sided model. Consistent with the
final policy described in section II.A.6.c of this final rule, and the
new provision at Sec. 425.204(f)(6), the repayment mechanism must be
in effect for the duration of an ACO's participation in a two-sided
model plus 12 months following the conclusion of the agreement period.
An ACO may fulfill this requirement by establishing a repayment
mechanism that covers the
[[Page 67959]]
entire agreement period plus an additional 12 months or by obtaining a
repayment mechanism with a term of at least the first two performance
years in which the ACO is participating under a two-sided model and
that provides for automatic, annual 12-month extensions of the
repayment mechanism through the remaining duration of the agreement
period such that the repayment mechanism will eventually remain in
effect until 12 months following the conclusion of the agreement
period.
Consistent with the final policy described in section II.A.6.c. of
this final rule and in Sec. 425.204(f)(4)(iv), a renewing ACO that is
currently participating under a two-sided model and enters a new
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, will also be permitted to
use its existing repayment mechanism to establish its ability to repay
shared losses incurred for performance years in its new agreement
period. An ACO choosing this option would be required to either extend
the term of the existing repayment mechanism such that it is in effect
until 12 months following the end of the new agreement period or extend
the term of the existing repayment mechanism, if necessary, such that
it covers the first two performance years of the new agreement period
and provides for automatic, annual 12-month extensions of the repayment
mechanism, which will result in the repayment mechanism eventually
remaining in effect for 12 months after the end of the new agreement
period. The ACO would also be required to increase the amount of its
repayment mechanism to reflect the new repayment mechanism amount
determined for its new agreement period, unless CMS notifies the
renewing ACO that the repayment mechanism amount for its new agreement
period is equal to or lower than its existing repayment mechanism
amount. If the repayment mechanism amount calculated for the new
agreement period is lower than the existing repayment mechanism amount,
the ACO would be required to maintain the repayment mechanism at the
existing higher amount.
We are also finalizing a policy that, for agreement periods
beginning on or after July 1, 2019, we will recalculate the estimated
amount of the ACO's repayment mechanism arrangement before the second
and each subsequent performance year in which the ACO is under a two-
sided model in the BASIC track or ENHANCED track. For example, for an
ACO with a July 1, 2019 agreement start date, we will recalculate the
amount of the ACO's repayment mechanism, in accordance with our final
regulation at Sec. 425.204(f)(4), before the start of performance year
2020. If the recalculated repayment mechanism amount exceeds the
existing repayment mechanism amount by at least 50 percent or
$1,000,000, whichever is the lesser value, we would require the ACO to
increase its repayment mechanism amount, consistent with the approach
described in section II.A.6.c. of this final rule and Sec.
425.204(f)(4)(iii).
We refer readers to section II.A.6.c. of this final rule for a
discussion of comments received on the proposed changes to the
repayment mechanism requirements.
(4) Quality Reporting and Quality Measure Sampling
As described in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41856 through
41858), to determine an ACO's quality performance during either 6-month
performance year during 2019, we proposed to use the ACO's quality
performance for the 2019 reporting period as determined under Sec.
425.502. For ACOs that participate in only one of the 6-month
performance years (such as ACOs that started a first or second
agreement period on January 1, 2016, that extend their agreement period
by 6 months and do not continue in the program past June 30, 2019, or
ACOs that enter an initial agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019),
we would also account for the ACO's quality performance using quality
measure data reported for the 12-month CY 2019. ACOs that terminate
their agreement effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new agreement
period starting on July 1, 2019, would also be required to complete
quality reporting for the 2019 reporting period, and we would determine
quality performance for the performance period from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, in the same manner as for ACOs with a 6-month
performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, that
enter a new agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019.
As we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule, the following
considerations support this proposed approach. For one, use of a 12-
month period for quality measure assessment maintains alignment with
the program's existing quality measurement approach, and aligns with
the proposed use of 12 months of expenditure data (for CY 2019) in
determining the ACO's financial performance. Also, this approach would
continue to align the program's quality reporting period with policies
under the Quality Payment Program. ACO professionals that are MIPS
eligible clinicians (not QPs based on their participation in an
Advanced APM or otherwise excluded from MIPS) would continue to be
scored under MIPS using the APM scoring standard that covers all of
2019. (For further discussion of the interactions with the Quality
Payment Program see section II.A.7.c.(8). of this final rule.) Second,
the measure specifications for the quality measures used under the
program require 12 months of data. See for example, the Shared Savings
Program ACO 2018 Quality Measures Narrative Specification Document
(January 20, 2018), available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/2018-reporting-year-narrative-specifications.pdf. Third, in light of our proposal to
use 12 months of expenditures (based on CY 2019) in determining shared
savings and shared losses for a 6-month performance year, it would also
be appropriate to hold ACOs accountable for the quality of the care
furnished to their assigned beneficiaries during this same timeframe.
Fourth, and lastly, using an annual quality reporting cycle for the 6-
month performance year would avoid the need to introduce new reporting
requirements, and therefore potential additional burden on ACOs, that
would arise from a requirement that ACOs report quality separately for
each 6-month performance year during CY 2019.
The ACO participant list is used to determine beneficiary
assignment for purposes of generating the quality reporting samples.
Beneficiary assignment is performed using the applicable assignment
methodology under Sec. 425.400, either preliminary prospective
assignment or prospective assignment, with excluded beneficiaries
removed under Sec. 425.401(b), as applicable. The samples for claims-
based measures are typically determined based on the assignment list
for calendar year quarter 4. The sample for quality measures reported
through the CMS Web Interface is typically determined based on the
beneficiary assignment list for calendar year quarter 3. The CAHPS for
ACOs survey sample is typically determined based on the beneficiary
assignment list for calendar year quarter 2.
As discussed in section II.A.7.c.(2). of this final rule, ACOs that
participate in both 6-month performance years during 2019 may use a
different ACO participant list for each performance year (for example,
in the case of an ACO that started a first or second agreement period
on January 1, 2016, that extends its current agreement period by 6
months, and then makes changes to its
[[Page 67960]]
ACO participant list as part of its renewal application for a July 1,
2019 start date). Further, as explained in section II.A.7.c.(4). of the
August 2018 proposed rule, under our proposed approach, it was possible
that different assignment methodologies and assignment windows would be
used to assign beneficiaries to ACOs for the two 6-month performance
years during 2019. Therefore, we considered which certified ACO
participant list and assignment methodology to use to identify the
samples of beneficiaries for quality reporting for the entire 2019
reporting period for ACOs participating in one or both of the 6-month
performance years during 2019 (or the 6-month performance period for
ACOs that elect to voluntarily terminate their existing participation
agreement, effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period
starting on July 1, 2019).
For purposes of determining the quality reporting samples for the
2019 reporting period, we proposed to use the ACO's most recent
certified ACO participant list available at the time the quality
reporting samples are generated, and the assignment methodology most
recently applicable to the ACO for a 2019 performance year. We
explained our belief that this approach would result in the most
relevant beneficiary samples for 2019 quality reporting. For instance,
for purposes of measures reported by ACOs through the CMS Web
Interface, ACOs must work together with their ACO participants and ACO
providers/suppliers to abstract data from medical records for
reporting. In the case of an ACO that started a new agreement period on
July 1, 2019, basing assignment for the CMS Web Interface quality
reporting sample on the most recent ACO participant list would allow
this coordination to occur between the ACO and its current ACO
participant TINs, rather than requiring the ACO to coordinate with ACO
participants from a prior performance year that may no longer be
included on the ACO participant list for the agreement period beginning
on July 1, 2019. Further, basing the sample for the CAHPS for ACOs
survey on the most recent ACO participant list could ensure the ACO
receives feedback from the ACO's assigned beneficiaries on their
experience of care with ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers
based on the ACO's current ACO participant list, rather than based on
its prior ACO participant list. This could allow for more meaningful
care coordination improvements by the ACO in response to the feedback
from the survey. Additionally, we believed this proposed approach to
determining the ACO's quality reporting samples was also appropriate
for an ACO that participates in only one 6-month performance year
during 2019 because the most recent certified ACO participant list
applicable for the performance year would also be the certified ACO
participant list that is used to determine financial performance.
For ACOs that enter an agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019,
including new ACOs, ACOs that extended their prior participation
agreement for the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, and ACOs that start a 12-month performance year
on January 1, 2019, and terminate their participation agreement with an
effective date of termination of June 30, 2019, and enter a new
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, we proposed to use the
certified ACO participant list for the performance year starting on
July 1, 2019, to determine the quality reporting samples for the 2019
reporting period. This most recent certified ACO participant list would
therefore be used to determine the quality reporting samples for the
2019 reporting year, which would be used to determine performance for
the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30,
2019 (or performance period for ACOs that elect to voluntarily
terminate their existing participation agreement, effective June 30,
2019, and enter a new agreement period starting on July 1, 2019) and
the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31,
2019.
Beneficiary assignment for purposes of generating the quality
reporting samples would be based on the assignment methodology
applicable to the ACO during its 6-month performance year from July 1,
2019, through December 31, 2019, under Sec. 425.400, either
preliminary prospective assignment or prospective assignment, with
excluded beneficiaries removed under Sec. 425.401(b), as applicable.
We anticipated the assignment windows for the quality reporting samples
would be as follows based on our operational experience: (1) Samples
for claims-based measures would be determined based on the assignment
list for calendar year quarter 4; (2) the sample for CMS Web Interface
measures would be determined based on the assignment list for calendar
year quarter 3, which equates to the ACO's first quarter of its 6-month
performance year beginning on July 1, 2019; and (3) the sample for the
CAHPS for ACOs survey would be determined based on the initial
prospective or preliminary prospective assignment list for the 6-month
performance year beginning on July 1, 2019.
We believed it would be necessary to use the initial assignment
list for the CAHPS for ACOs survey sample, to make use of the most
recent available prospective assignment list data and quarterly
preliminary prospective assignment data for ACOs for the 6-month
performance year beginning on July 1, 2019. Further, for CMS Web
Interface measures and claims-based measures, the proposed approach
would be consistent with the current methodology for determining the
samples.
We proposed to specify the ACO participant list that would be used
in determining the quality reporting samples for measuring quality
performance for the 6-month performance years in a new section of the
regulations at Sec. 425.609(b) and (c).
In the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59953 through 59955), we
finalized an approach under which we will use the ACO's latest
certified ACO participant list (the ACO participant list effective on
January 1, 2019) to determine the quality reporting samples for the
2019 reporting period for ACOs that extend their participation
agreement for the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019. This policy is specified at Sec. 425.609(b).
Comment: One commenter supported CMS' proposal to require ACOs that
participate in both the 6-month performance year (or performance
period) from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, and the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, to
report the CMS Web Interface measures only once for the 2019 reporting
period, and to use the most recent ACO participant list as of July 1,
2019, to determine the quality reporting samples. The commenter noted
that this proposed approach would reduce administrative burden for
participating providers.
However, several comments indicated commenters mistakenly believed
that ACOs participating in both the 6-month performance year (or
performance period) from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, and
the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31,
2019, would be required to report quality data twice for CY 2019. One
commenter stated that reporting twice would be expensive and time
consuming.
Response: As we explained in the November 2018 final rule (83 FR
59954),
[[Page 67961]]
because we proposed to use quality performance during all of CY 2019 to
assess quality performance in both of the 6-month performance years (or
performance period) in CY 2019, we proposed that ACOs would only be
required to report quality once for CY 2019, regardless of whether they
complete their participation in the program following the conclusion of
the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30,
2019, or if they renew for a new agreement period beginning on July 1,
2019. Therefore, ACOs participating in the 6-month performance year
from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, and the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, will
only report quality once for CY 2019. We will apply the program's
sampling methodology, as we have described in this section of this
final rule, to determine the beneficiaries eligible for the samples for
claims-based measures (as calculated by CMS), CMS Web Interface
reporting, and the CAHPS for ACOs survey. We will follow the same
approach to determine quality performance for the 6-month performance
period from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, and the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, for ACOs
that elect to voluntarily terminate their existing participation
agreement, effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period
starting on July 1, 2019.
We also note that for the 2019 reporting period, ACOs would be
required to report quality data through the CMS Web Interface,
according to the method and timing of submission established by CMS.
The period for reporting quality data through the CMS Web Interface
typically occurs for a 12-week period between January and March,
following the conclusion of the calendar year. Thus, ACOs that
participate in a 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, along with all other Shared Savings Program ACOs
that participate in the program in 2019 would be required to report for
the 2019 reporting period, and would report quality data through the
CMS Web Interface during the designated reporting period in early 2020.
Similarly, ACOs participating in the 6-month performance year from July
1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, would be required to contract with
a CMS-approved vendor to administer the CAHPS for ACOs survey for the
2019 reporting period, consistent with program-wide policies applicable
to all other ACOs.
Final Action: After considering the comments received, we are
finalizing our proposal to determine an ACO's quality performance
during the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December
31, 2019, using the ACO's quality performance for the 12-month CY 2019
(2019 reporting period) as determined under Sec. 425.502. The approach
we finalized in the November 2018 final rule, for determining an ACO's
quality performance for the 6-month performance year from January 1,
2019, through June 30, 2019, using the ACO's quality performance for
the 12-month CY 2019 (2019 reporting period) as determined under Sec.
425.502, will apply to determine quality performance for the
performance period from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, for
ACOs that elect to voluntarily terminate their existing participation
agreement, effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period
starting on July 1, 2019.
We are also finalizing our proposal that the ACO participant list
finalized for the first performance year of the ACO's agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019, is used to determine the quality reporting
samples for the 2019 reporting year for the following ACOs that also
participate in a performance year or performance period from January 1,
2019, through June 30, 2019: (1) An ACO that extends its participation
agreement for a 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through
June 30, 2019, and enters a new agreement period beginning on July 1,
2019; and (2) an ACO that participates in the program for the first 6
months of a 12-month performance year during 2019, but elects to
voluntarily terminate its existing participation agreement effective
June 30, 2019, and enters a new agreement period starting on July 1,
2019. This policy will be specified in revisions to Sec.
425.609(b)(2).
We are also finalizing our proposal to include a provision at Sec.
425.609(c)(2), to specify that for purposes of the 6-month performance
year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, the ACO participant
list finalized for the first performance year of the ACO's agreement
period beginning on July 1, 2019, is used to determine the quality
reporting samples for the 2019 reporting year for all ACOs.
(5) Applicability of Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstances Policies
In section II.E.4. of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41899
through 41906), we proposed that the policies for addressing extreme
and uncontrollable circumstances would apply to ACOs participating in
each of the 6-month performance years during 2019 (or the 6-month
performance period for ACOs that elect to voluntarily terminate their
existing participation agreement, effective June 30, 2019, and enter a
new agreement period starting on July 1, 2019). Because we had proposed
to use 12 months of data, based on the calendar year, to determine
quality and financial performance for the two 6-month performance years
(or performance period) during 2019, we explained our belief that it
would be necessary to account for disasters occurring in any month(s)
of CY 2019 for ACOs participating in a 6-month performance year (or
performance period) during 2019 regardless of whether the ACO is
actively participating in the Shared Savings Program at the time of the
disaster. Therefore, for ACOs affected by a disaster in any month of
2019, we would use the alternative scoring methodology specified in
Sec. 425.502(f) to determine the quality performance score for the
2019 quality reporting period, if the reporting period is not extended.
In order to determine financial performance for ACOs with a 6-month
performance year (or performance period) in CY 2019 that are affected
by an extreme or uncontrollable circumstance during CY 2019, we
proposed to first determine shared losses for the ACO over the full
calendar year, adjust the ACO's losses for extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances, and then determine the portion of shared losses for the
6-month performance year (or performance period) according to the
methodology proposed under Sec. 425.609. We proposed to specify the
applicability of these disaster relief policies to determining an ACO's
financial and quality performance for a 6-month performance year (or
performance period) in a new section of the regulations at Sec.
425.609(d).
We also proposed to apply our policies regarding extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances to ACOs that are liable for a pro-rated
share of losses, determined based on their financial performance during
the entire performance year, as a consequence of voluntary termination
of a 12-month performance year after June 30, or involuntary
termination by CMS. We proposed that the amount of shared losses
calculated for the calendar year would be adjusted to reflect the
number of months and the percentage of the assigned beneficiary
population affected by extreme and uncontrollable
[[Page 67962]]
circumstances, before we calculate the pro-rated amount of shared
losses for the portion of the year the ACO participated in the Shared
Savings Program. For ACOs that are involuntarily terminated during the
6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019,
pro-rated shared losses for the 6-month performance year would be
determined based on assigned beneficiary expenditures for the full
calendar year 2019 and then would be pro-rated to account for the
partial year of participation prior to the involuntary termination and
the impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances on the ACO. We
proposed to specify these policies in modifications to Sec.
425.221(b), and through new provisions at Sec. 425.605(f)(2)(i) (a new
section of the regulations establishing the BASIC track), Sec.
425.606(i)(2)(i) (Track 2), and Sec. 425.610(i)(2)(i) (ENHANCED
track).
In the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59968 through 59979), we
extended the policies for addressing the impact of extreme and unusual
circumstances on financial and quality performance that we had
previously adopted for performance year 2017 to performance year 2018
and subsequent years. The policies governing the calculation of shared
losses in the event of extreme and unusual circumstances are at Sec.
425.606(i) for Track 2. For Track 3, as renamed in this final rule the
ENHANCED track, the policies are at Sec. 425.610(i). The policies for
determining the ACO's quality performance score are at Sec.
425.502(f). In a new section of the regulations at Sec. 425.609(d), we
specified that these policies would also apply to the determination of
an ACO's financial and quality performance for the 6-month performance
year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019.
Final Action: There were no comments directed specifically at our
proposals with respect to the application of our policies for
addressing the impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances to
ACOs participating in a 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019,
through December 31, 2019. We are finalizing as proposed the policies
for determining the financial and quality performance for the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, for ACOs
affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances during CY 2019. We
are finalizing revisions to Sec. 425.609(d)(1) to add to a reference
to the provision at Sec. 425.609(c), which governs the determination
of shared losses for ACOs participating in a 6-month performance year
from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019. Therefore, for ACOs with
a 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31,
2019, that are affected by an extreme or uncontrollable circumstance
during CY 2019, we will first determine shared losses for the ACO over
the full calendar year, adjust the ACO's losses for extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances, and then determine the portion of shared
losses for the 6-month performance year (or performance period)
according to the methodology under Sec. 425.609(c). As discussed in
section II.A.7.c.(4) of this final rule and as specified in the
regulations at Sec. 425.609(c)(2), for ACOs participating in the 6-
month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019 we
will use the ACO's quality performance for the 2019 reporting period to
determine the ACO's quality performance score as specified in Sec.
425.502. As finalized in the November 2018 final rule, the provision at
Sec. 425.502(f) specifies the policies for determining an ACO's
quality performance score when the ACO is affected by extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances. Therefore, these policies will also apply
to the determination of an ACO's quality performance during the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, in the
event the ACO is affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance
during CY 2019.
There were no comments directed specifically at our proposals with
respect to the application of our policies for addressing the impact of
extreme and uncontrollable circumstances to ACOs participating in a
performance period from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, because
they elect to voluntarily terminate their existing participation
agreement, effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period
starting on July 1, 2019. We are finalizing our proposal to adjust
shared losses for the 6-month performance period from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, to address the impact of extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances on ACOs that elect to voluntarily
terminate their existing participation agreement, effective June 30,
2019, and enter a new agreement period starting on July 1, 2019. As we
previously described in section II.A.7.b.(3). of this final rule, early
renewal ACOs will be reconciled for the 6-month performance period from
January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, according to Sec. 425.609(b).
Further, we are finalizing as proposed the revisions to Sec.
425.606(i)(2)(i) (Track 2) and Sec. 425.610(i)(2)(i) (ENHANCED track)
in order to apply the disaster relief policies in determining shared
losses for the 6-month performance period from January 1, 2019, through
June 30, 2019, for early renewing ACOs.
More generally, there were no comments directed at our proposals to
revise Sec. 425.606(i)(2)(i) (Track 2) and Sec. 425.610(i)(2)(i)
(ENHANCED track), and to add a new provision at Sec. 425.605(f) (BASIC
track), to apply the disaster relief policies to ACOs accountable for
pro-rated shared losses as a payment consequence of early termination
under the revisions to Sec. 425.221(b) that we are making in this
final rule. We are finalizing these policies as proposed. These
policies will also apply to determining pro-rated shared losses for
ACOs that are involuntarily terminated from a 6-month performance year
from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Lastly, as discussed in II.A.2. of this final rule, we are
finalizing our proposed addition of the new BASIC track. Therefore, we
are also revising Sec. 425.609(d)(1) to add a cross reference to Sec.
425.605(f) so that the policies for adjusting shared losses for extreme
and uncontrollable circumstances will apply to ACOs participating in
two-sided models of the BASIC track during the 6-month performance year
from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
(6) Payment and Recoupment for 6-Month Performance Years
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41858), we proposed
policies regarding CMS' notification to ACOs of shared savings and
shared losses, and the timing for an ACO's repayment of shared losses,
for both the 6-month performance year (or performance period) from
January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, and the 6-month performance
year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019. We proposed to
provide separate reconciliation reports for each 6-month performance
year, and to pay shared savings or recoup shared losses separately for
each 6-month performance year. Since we proposed to perform financial
reconciliation for both 6-month performance years during 2019 after the
end of CY 2019, we anticipated that financial performance reports for
both of these 6-month performance years would be available in Summer
2020, similar to the expected timeframe for issuing financial
performance reports for the 12-month 2019 performance year (and for 12-
month performance years generally).
[[Page 67963]]
We proposed to apply the same policies regarding notification of
shared savings and shared losses, and the timing of repayment of shared
losses, to ACOs in 6-month performance years that apply under our
current regulations to ACOs in 12-month performance years. We proposed
to specify in a new regulation at Sec. 425.609 that CMS would notify
the ACO of shared savings or shared losses for each reconciliation,
consistent with the notification requirements specified in Sec.
425.604(f), proposed Sec. 425.605(e), Sec. 425.606(h), and Sec.
425.610(h). Specifically, we proposed that: (1) CMS notifies an ACO in
writing regarding whether the ACO qualifies for a shared savings
payment, and if so, the amount of the payment due; (2) CMS provides
written notification to an ACO of the amount of shared losses, if any,
that it must repay to the program; and (3) if an ACO has shared losses,
the ACO must make payment in full to CMS within 90 days of receipt of
notification.
Because we anticipated results for both 6-month performance years
would be available at approximately the same time, we acknowledged that
there is a possibility that an ACO could be eligible for shared savings
for one 6-month performance year and liable for shared losses for the
other 6-month performance year. Although the same 12-month period would
be used to determine performance, the outcome for each partial calendar
year performance year could be different because of differences in the
ACO's assigned population (for example, resulting from potentially
different ACO participant lists and the use of different assignment
methodologies), different benchmark amounts resulting from the
different benchmarking methodologies applicable to each agreement
period, and/or differences in the ACO's track of participation.
In earlier rulemaking, we considered the circumstance where, over
the course of its participation in the Shared Savings Program, an ACO
may earn shared savings in some years and incur losses in other years.
We considered whether the full amount of shared savings payments should
be paid in the year in which they accrue, or whether some portion
should be withheld to offset potential future losses. However, we did
not finalize a withholding from shared savings. See 76 FR 67941 and
67942. Instead, an ACO's repayment mechanism provides a possible source
of recoupment for CMS should the ACO fail to timely pay shared losses
within the 90-day repayment window.
We revisited these considerations about withholding shared savings
payments in light of our proposed approach to determining ACO
performance for the two 6-month performance years at approximately the
same time following the conclusion of CY 2019. We proposed to conduct
reconciliation for each 6-month performance year at the same time.
After reconciliation for both 6-month performance years is complete, we
would furnish notice of shared savings or shared losses due for each
performance year at the same time, either in a single notice or two
separate notices. For ACOs that have mixed results for the two 6-month
performance years of 2019, being eligible for a shared savings payment
for one performance year and owing shared losses for the other
performance year, we proposed to reduce the shared savings payment for
one 6-month performance year by the amount of any shared losses owed
for the other 6-month performance year. This approach would guard
against CMS making a payment to an organization that has an unpaid debt
to the Medicare program, and therefore would be protective of the Trust
Funds. We believed this approach would also be less burdensome for
ACOs, for example, in the event that the ACO's shared losses are
completely offset by the ACO's shared savings. We noted that this
approach to offsetting shared losses against any shared savings could
result in a balance of either unpaid shared losses that must be repaid,
or a remainder of shared savings that the ACO would be eligible to
receive.
We proposed to specify these policies on payment and recoupment for
ACOs in 6-month performance years within CY 2019 in a new section of
the regulations at Sec. 425.609(e). In the November 2018 final rule
(83 FR 59955 and 59956), we finalized at Sec. 425.609(e) requirements
for CMS to notify ACOs of shared savings and shared losses, and the
timing for an ACO's repayment of shared losses, for the 6-month
performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019.
Comment: Some commenters explained that receiving separate
reconciliation reports for the two performance periods only adds to the
complexity of the program, including deciphering appropriate financial
distributions, if applicable.
Response: Given that we are determining financial performance for
two separate 6-month performance years, based on separate historical
benchmark calculations, financial models, and assigned beneficiary
populations, we believe it necessary to provide separate reconciliation
report packages to ACOs for each 6-month performance year. We believe
ACOs are interested in the specific details of the performance
calculations, and would also to seek to understand how their
performance compares between the two 6-month performance years (if
applicable).
Final Action: Although we received comments on our proposed
approach to notifying ACOs of their results for each 6-month
performance year separately, we did not receive comments addressing our
proposal regarding the timing for ACOs' repayment of shared losses for
6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019,
or on our proposal to reduce the shared savings payment for one 6-month
performance year by the amount of any shared losses owed for the other
6-month performance year for ACOs that have mixed results for the two
6-month performance years of 2019.
After considering the comments received, we are finalizing the
proposed policies on payment and recoupment for the 6-month performance
year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and the performance
period from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, for ACOs that
terminate their agreement effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new
agreement period starting on July 1, 2019. These policies will be
specified in modifications to Sec. 425.609(e). These policies are
consistent with the program's existing policies for notification to
ACOs about payment and recoupment for 12-month performance years, and
for the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30,
2019, as finalized in the November 2018 final rule. These policies also
take into account that some ACOs may participate in both 6-month
performance years (or performance period) and will be reconciled for
their financial and quality performance for both periods.
We note that we are finalizing our proposed policies with a change
in the enumeration scheme. Specifically, we are placing the general
provisions regarding notification to ACOs of shared savings and losses
at Sec. 425.609(e)(1), and we are placing the policies addressing ACOs
with mixed results for the two 6-month performance periods at Sec.
425.609(e)(2). In the introductory text of Sec. 425.609(e)(1), we are
including references to the performance period from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, and the 6-month performance year from July 1,
2019, through December 31, 2019. We are also adding a cross-reference
to Sec. 425.605(e) regarding the notification requirements for the new
BASIC track, and we are maintaining the existing cross-reference to the
notification requirements under
[[Page 67964]]
Sec. 425.610(h), which now applies to ACOs participating in the
ENHANCED track.
Under the revised Sec. 425.609(e)(1), CMS notifies the ACO of
shared savings or shared losses separately for the January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019 performance year (or performance period) and the
July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019 performance year, consistent
with the notification requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 425.604(f),
425.605(e), 425.606(h), and 425.610(h), as applicable. Specifically,
CMS notifies an ACO in writing regarding whether the ACO qualifies for
a shared savings payment, and if so, the amount of the payment due. CMS
provides written notification to an ACO of the amount of shared losses,
if any, that it must repay to the program. If an ACO has shared losses,
the ACO must make payment in full to CMS within 90 days of receipt of
notification.
We are finalizing as proposed the policies for addressing ACOs that
have mixed results for the two 6-month performance years (or
performance period) of 2019, earning shared savings for one performance
year (or performance period) and owing shared losses for the other
performance year (or performance period). We are revising the
regulations to add a new provision at Sec. 425.609(e)(2) to specify
that if an ACO is reconciled for both the January 1, 2019, through June
30, 2019 performance year (or performance period) and the July 1, 2019,
through December 31, 2019 performance year, CMS issues a separate
notice of shared savings or shared losses for each performance year (or
performance period), and if the ACO has shared savings for one
performance year (or performance period) and shared losses for the
other performance year (or performance period), CMS reduces the amount
of shared savings by the amount of shared losses. If any amount of
shared savings remains after completely repaying the amount of shared
losses owed, the ACO is eligible to receive payment for the remainder
of the shared savings. If the amount of shared losses owed exceeds the
amount of shared savings earned, the ACO is accountable for payment of
the remaining balance of shared losses in full.
(7) Automatic Transition of ACOs Under the BASIC Track's Glide Path
Under our proposed design of the BASIC track's glide path, ACOs
that enter the glide path at Levels A through D would be automatically
advanced to the next level of the glide path at the start of each
subsequent performance year of the agreement period. The five levels of
the glide path would phase-in over the duration of an ACO's agreement
period. The design of the BASIC track's glide path is therefore tied to
the duration of the agreement period.
With our proposal to offer agreement periods of 5 years and 6
months to ACOs with July 2019 start dates, we believed it was necessary
to address how we would apply the policy for moving ACOs along the
glide path in an agreement period with a duration of more than 5 years.
As discussed in section II.A.7.c.(7) of the August 2018 proposed rule
(83 FR 41858 through 41859), we proposed a one-time exception to be
specified in Sec. 425.600, whereby the automatic advancement policy
would not apply to the second performance year for an ACO entering the
BASIC track's glide path for an agreement period beginning on July 1,
2019. For performance year 2020, the ACO would remain in the same level
of the BASIC track's glide path that it entered for the 6-month
performance year beginning on July 1, 2019, unless the ACO uses the
proposed flexibility to advance to a higher level of risk and potential
reward more quickly. The ACO would automatically advance to the next
level of the BASIC track's glide path at the start of performance year
2021 and all subsequent performance years of the agreement period,
unless the ACO chooses to advance more quickly. This proposed approach
would allow a modest increase in the amount of time initial entrants in
the BASIC track's glide path could remain under a particular level,
including a one-sided model.
Generally, commenters favored an approach that would allow ACOs to
remain under a one-sided model of the BASIC track's glide path for
additional time. See section II.A.3.b. of this final rule for comment
summaries concerning the automatic progression along the BASIC track's
glide path. We did not receive any comments specifically addressing the
proposed one-time exception to the automatic advancement policy,
applicable to the second performance year of the BASIC track's glide
path for an ACO entering an agreement period beginning July 1, 2019.
Final Action: We are finalizing as proposed a one-time exception to
be specified at Sec. 425.600(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(i), whereby the automatic
advancement policy will not apply to the second performance year for an
ACO entering the BASIC track's glide path for an agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019. For performance year 2020, the ACO will
remain in the same level of the BASIC track's glide path it entered for
the 6-month performance year beginning on July 1, 2019, unless the ACO
chooses to advance to a higher level of risk and potential reward more
quickly. The ACO will automatically advance to the next level of the
BASIC track's glide path at the start of performance year 2021 and all
subsequent performance years of the agreement period, unless the ACO
chooses to advance more quickly.
(8) Interactions With the Quality Payment Program
As described in section II.A.7.c.(8). of the August 2018 proposed
rule (83 FR 41859), we took into consideration how the proposed July 1,
2019 start date could interact with other Medicare initiatives,
particularly the Quality Payment Program timelines relating to
participation in APMs. In the CY 2018 Quality Payment Program final
rule with comment period, we finalized a policy for APMs that start or
end during the QP Performance Period. Specifically, under Sec.
414.1425(c)(7)(i), for Advanced APMs that start during the QP
Performance Period and are actively tested for at least 60 continuous
days during a QP Performance Period, CMS will make QP determinations
and Partial QP determinations for eligible clinicians in the Advanced
APM. CMS makes QP determinations for eligible clinicians in an Advanced
APM three times during the QP Performance Period using claims data for
services furnished from January 1 through each of the respective QP
determination dates: March 31, June 30, and August 31 (Sec.
414.1425(b)(1)) (sometimes referred to as snapshot dates). We explained
that an Advanced APM (such as a two-sided model of the Shared Savings
Program) would need to begin operations by July 1 of a given
performance year in order to be actively tested for at least 60
continuous days before August 31--the last date on which QP
determinations are made during a QP Performance Period (as specified in
Sec. 414.1425(b)(1)). Therefore, we believed that our proposed July 1,
2019 start date for the proposed new participation options under the
Shared Savings Program would align with Quality Payment Program rules
and requirements for participation in Advanced APMs.
Further, as described in section II.A.7.c.(4) of the August 2018
proposed rule (see 83 FR 41856), our proposal to use a 12-month period
for quality measure assessment for either 6-month performance year (or
the 6-month performance period) during 2019 would maintain alignment
with the program's existing quality measurement approach.
[[Page 67965]]
This approach would also continue to align the program's quality
reporting period with policies under the Quality Payment Program. We
explained that ACO professionals that are MIPS eligible clinicians (not
QPs based on their participation in an Advanced APM or otherwise
excluded from MIPS) would continue to be scored under MIPS using the
APM scoring standard that covers all of 2019.
In the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59956 and 59957), we
responded to comments on QP determinations for eligible clinicians
participating in an ACO whose agreement period expires on December 31,
2018, that elects a voluntary extension for the 6-month performance
year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, and does not continue
in the program past June 30, 2019. We also clarified what happens to an
eligible clinician's QP status if they are participating in an ACO that
is in a track that meets the Advanced APM criteria and elects to extend
for the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30,
2019, and either voluntarily terminates or is involuntarily terminated
prior to June 30, 2019. Further, we responded to comments on the
proposal to require ACOs in a 6-month performance year from January 1,
2019, through June 30, 2019, to report on quality based on 12-months of
data for 2019, and the MIPS quality reporting requirements for MIPS
eligible clinicians in ACOs that elect to extend their participation
agreement for the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019.
Comment: One commenter raised the possibility for confusion around
the applicability of the APM scoring standard under the MIPS or the
availability of APM incentive payments for eligible clinicians in ACOs
that move from lower risk in the 6-month performance year (or
performance period) from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, to an
Advanced APM for the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019,
through December 31, 2019. One commenter requested that CMS consider
ACOs that enter two-sided risk models that meet the Advanced APM
criteria for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, to be
participating in the Advanced APM for the entire calendar year for
purposes of computing the QP thresholds for participating eligible
clinicians. One commenter expressed concern that the July 1, 2019 start
date will create confusion among some providers, due to the likely
interaction with the snapshots that are used to determine QP status
under the Quality Payment Program. For example, the commenter stated
that for eligible clinicians in an ACO that transitions from Track 1 to
the ENHANCED track for an agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019,
there would only be a single snapshot period upon which to base the QP
determination. One commenter recommended that CMS make it clear that
``renewing'' Track 2 and Track 3 ACOs may move into the new ENHANCED
track without jeopardizing their participation in an Advanced APM and
potential QP status for their eligible clinicians for that year of the
transition.
Response: We believe these comments reflect the need for
clarification about whether an ACO's participation in Level E of the
BASIC track or the ENHANCED track for the 6-month performance year from
July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, would allow its eligible
clinicians to potentially attain QP status and earn an APM Incentive
Payment, as well as be excluded from the MIPS reporting requirements
and payment adjustment for 2019. An eligible clinician participating in
an Advanced APM who is determined to be a QP based on any of the three
snapshot dates for QP determinations will receive the full APM
Incentive Payment in the corresponding payment year. Eligible
clinicians in ACOs that elect to participate in Level E of the BASIC
track or the ENHANCED track for the 6-month performance year from July
1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, may earn the APM Incentive Payment
and be excluded from the MIPS reporting requirements and payment
adjustment for 2019 if they meet the requisite QP payment amount (50
percent) or patient count (35 percent) thresholds on the third QP
snapshot (August 31, 2019) during the QP performance period. When
conducting QP determinations for the third snapshot (August 31, 2019)
for ACOs that elect to participate in Level E of the BASIC track or the
ENHANCED track for the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019,
through December 31, 2019, we will continue to use the entire QP
performance period (that is, January 1, 2019, through August 31, 2019)
rather than conducting QP determinations from July 1, 2019, through
August 31, 2019.
We also believe there is a need to clarify what happens to an
eligible clinician's QP status if they are participating in an ACO that
is in a track that meets the Advanced APM criteria for the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and
either voluntarily terminates or is involuntarily terminated on or
before August 31, 2019. If their ACO terminates or is involuntarily
terminated on or before August 31, 2019, then eligible clinicians will
lose the opportunity to attain QP status as a result of the
termination. In addition, the eligible clinicians would not be scored
under MIPS using the APM Scoring Standard because they would not be
captured as participants in a MIPS APM on one of the four snapshots
used to determine APM participation. If the ACO is in an active
agreement period on August 31, 2019, then eligible clinicians who are
determined to be QPs based on the third QP snapshot will maintain their
QP status and be considered MIPS APM participants, even if the ACO's
agreement is terminated after that date.
Comment: Some commenters requested clarification on how quality
reporting for a 6-month performance year based on 12-months of data for
2019 will satisfy the MIPS quality reporting requirements for MIPS
eligible clinicians in ACOs that participate in a 6-month performance
year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Response: We believe the comments reflect the need for
clarification about whether 2019 quality performance for a 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, under
the Shared Savings Program will count the same as a full year of
performance for purposes of the APM scoring standard. That is, would
the 2019 quality reporting for the 6-month performance year count
toward the final MIPS score in the same way that it would for an ACO
that is participating in a full 12-month performance year in the
program.
As discussed in section II.A.7.c.(4). of this final rule, we are
finalizing a policy of using a 12-month period for quality performance
assessment for the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, in order to maintain alignment with the program's
existing quality measurement approach, and with policies under the
Quality Payment Program. ACO professionals that are MIPS eligible
clinicians (not QPs based on their participation in an Advanced APM or
otherwise excluded from MIPS) participating in an ACO that completes a
6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019,
would be scored under MIPS using the APM Scoring Standard for 2019,
based on quality data submitted for all of 2019 during the regular
submission period in early 2020.
(9) Sharing CY 2019 Aggregate Data With ACOs in 6-Month Performance
Period From January 2019 Through June 2019
As established in the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59957), we
will
[[Page 67966]]
continue to provide ACOs participating in a 6-month performance year
from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, with aggregate reports for
all four quarters of CY 2019 based on the ACO participant list in
effect for that 6-month performance year. This policy is specified in
revisions to Sec. 425.702. In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR
41859), we proposed to apply this same policy for ACOs that participate
in the first 6 months of a 12-month performance year in 2019 but then
terminate their participation agreement with an effective date of
termination of June 30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period
beginning July 1, 2019. We explained that this would give ACOs a more
complete understanding of the Medicare FFS beneficiary population that
is the basis for reconciliation for the 6 month period from January 1,
2019, through June 30, 2019, by allowing them to continue to receive
data, including demographic characteristics and expenditure/utilization
trends for this assigned beneficiary population for the entire calendar
year. We believed this proposed approach would allow us to maintain
transparency by providing ACOs with data that relates to the entire
period for which the expenditures for the beneficiaries assigned to the
ACO for this 6-performance period would be compared to the ACO's
benchmark (before pro-rating any shared savings or shared losses to
reflect the length of the performance year), and maintain consistency
with the reports delivered to ACOs that participate in a 12-month
performance year in 2019. Otherwise, we could be limited to providing
ACOs with aggregate reports only for the first and second quarters of
2019, even though under our proposed methodology for assessing the
financial performance of ACOs in a 6-month performance period would
involve consideration of expenditures from outside this period during
2019.
Comment: One commenter believed ACOs participating in both 6-month
performance years (or the 6-month performance period) will be burdened
by having two sets of aggregate program reports from CMS (such as
assignment summary reports, and expenditure/utilization trend reports),
and incorrectly asserted that ACOs will receive two sets of monthly
beneficiary-identifiable claim and claim line feed data files.
Response: We believe many ACOs participating in the 6-month
performance years (or the 6-month performance period) during 2019 will
seek an in-depth understanding of their performance trends during each
of the 6-month performance years (or the 6-month performance period)
and will also want to assess how their financial performance compares
between the two 6-month periods (if applicable). We believe these ACOs
would be supported by the availability of quarterly and annual program
reports on their assigned beneficiary population for each performance
year (or performance period), including demographic information and
expenditure/utilization trends for the applicable assigned beneficiary
population. We also recognize, however, that how an ACO uses these data
is often specific to the individual circumstances of the organization
and its data analysis capacity, among other factors.
Further, we provide monthly beneficiary-identifiable data, in claim
and claim line feed files, to eligible ACOs based on the requirements
specified in Sec. 425.704. We provide ACOs with beneficiary
identifiable claims data for prospectively assigned beneficiaries, and
for assignable beneficiaries who receive primary care services from an
ACO participant that submits claims for primary care services used to
determine the ACO's assigned population during the performance year. We
note that these files include Parts A, B, and D data, and support the
ACO's quality assessment and improvement activities, and population-
based activities relating to improved health. Under the program's
current policies, we would deliver the monthly claim and claim line
feed files to the ACO for the relevant population within each
performance year, determined based on the certified ACO participant
list in effect for that performance year. Operationally, this means
eligible ACOs participating in the 6-month performance year (or
performance period) from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019 will
receive claim and claim line feed files each month based on the ACO
participant list certified prior to the start of their performance year
beginning on January 1, 2019. These ACOs will receive data files
containing claims with dates of service through June 2019. Eligible
ACOs participating in the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019,
through December 31, 2019 will receive claim and claim line feed files
each month based on the ACO participant list certified prior to the
start of July 1, 2019. These ACOs will receive data files containing
claims with dates of service through December 2019.
In the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59957), we also summarized
and addressed comments requesting additional guidance and education on
whether there will be disruptions in sharing claims files with ACOs
participating in a 6-month performance year in CY 2019. We refer
readers to that discussion for additional information on this issue.
Final Action: After considering the comments we received on our
data sharing proposal, we are finalizing our proposal to provide ACOs
participating in a 6-month performance period from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, with aggregate reports for all four quarters of
CY 2019 based on the ACO participant list in effect for the first 6
months of the year. In section II.A.7.b.(3) of this final rule we
describe modifications that we are making to Sec. 425.609(b) in order
to extend this provision to the determination of pro-rated shared
savings and shared losses for the performance period from January 1,
2019, through June 30, 2019, for ACOs that terminate their agreement
effective June 30, 2019, and enter a new agreement period starting on
July 1, 2019. The policy for sharing aggregate data with ACOs in a 6-
month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, is
specified in the existing provision at Sec. 425.702, as revised by the
November 2018 final rule, which applies to ``an ACO eligible to be
reconciled under Sec. 425.609(b).'' Therefore, with the policies
established in this final rule, this existing provision on sharing CY
2019 aggregate data will apply not only to ACOs in a 6-month
performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, but also
to ACOs that terminate their current agreement effective June 30, 2019,
and enter a new agreement period starting on July 1, 2019.
(10) Technical or Conforming Changes To Allow for 6-Month Performance
Years
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41859 and 41860), we
proposed to make certain technical, conforming changes to provisions of
the Shared Savings Program regulations to reflect our proposal to add a
new provision at Sec. 425.609 to govern the calculation of the
financial results for the 6-month performance years within CY 2019. In
the November 2018 final rule, we finalized a subset of the proposed
technical, conforming changes as necessary to reflect the addition of
the new provision at Sec. 425.609 to govern the calculation of the
financial results for the 6-month performance year from January 1,
2019, through June 30, 2019 (83 FR 59957 through 59958).
There were no comments directed specifically at our proposed
technical and conforming changes to allow for a
[[Page 67967]]
6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
The following changes finalized in the November 2018 final rule for
purposes of the 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through
June 30, 2019, will also apply to the 6-month performance year from
July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Our revisions to Sec. 425.315 (the policies on reopening
determinations of shared savings and shared losses to correct financial
reconciliation calculations) to incorporate a reference to notification
of shared savings and shared losses for ACOs in a 6-month performance
year within CY 2019, as specified in Sec. 425.609(e).
Our revisions to Sec. 425.100 to add a reference to Sec. 425.609
in order to include ACOs that participate in a 6-month performance year
during 2019 in the general description of ACOs that are eligible to
receive payments for shared savings under the program.
Our revisions to Sec. 425.400(a)(1)(ii), describing the step-wise
process for determining beneficiary assignment for each performance
year, to specify that this process applies to ACOs participating in a
6-month performance year within CY 2019, and that assignment is
determined based on the beneficiary's utilization of primary care
services during the entirety of CY 2019, as specified in Sec. 425.609.
In this final rule, we are finalizing the remaining proposed
modifications to the Shared Savings Program regulations to incorporate
additional technical and conforming changes that are necessary to
ensure that the policies previously finalized for ACOs in a 6-month
performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, will also
apply to ACOs in a 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019.
In Sec. 425.401(b), describing the exclusion of beneficiaries from
an ACO's prospective assignment list at the end of a performance year
or benchmark year and quarterly each performance year, we proposed to
specify that these exclusions would occur at the end of CY 2019 for
purposes of determining assignment to an ACO in a 6-month performance
year in accordance with Sec. Sec. 425.400(a)(3)(ii) and 425.609. In
the November 2018 final rule, we finalized the applicability of this
policy to determining prospective assignment for ACOs participating in
a 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019.
With this final rule, we are further modifying Sec. 425.401(b) to add
a cross-reference to Sec. 425.609(c)(1)(ii), which governs the
determination of prospective assignment for ACOs participating in a 6-
month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
We proposed to incorporate references to Sec. 425.609 in the
regulations that govern establishing, adjusting, and updating the
benchmark, including proposed Sec. 425.601, and the existing
provisions at Sec. 425.602, and Sec. 425.603, to specify that the
annual risk adjustment and update to the ACO's historical benchmark for
the 6-month performance years during 2019 would use factors based on
the entirety of CY 2019. For clarity and simplicity, we proposed to add
a paragraph to each of these sections to explain the following: (1)
Regarding the annual risk adjustment applied to the historical
benchmark, when CMS adjusts the benchmark for the 6-month performance
years described in Sec. 425.609, the adjustment will reflect the
change in severity and case mix between benchmark year 3 and CY 2019;
(2) Regarding the annual update to the historical benchmark, when CMS
updates the benchmark for the 6-month performance years described in
Sec. 425.609, the update to the benchmark will be based on growth
between benchmark year 3 and CY 2019. In the November 2018 final rule,
we finalized these amendments, as applicable to the January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019 performance year with the addition of provisions
Sec. 425.602(c) and Sec. 425.603(g).
In a new section of the regulations at Sec. 425.601(g), on
establishing, adjusting, and updating the benchmark for agreement
periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years (as
discussed in section II.D. of this final rule), we are specifying that
the annual risk adjustment and update to the ACO's historical benchmark
for the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through December
31, 2019, will use factors based on the entirety of CY 2019. The
provision explains the following: (1) Regarding the annual risk
adjustment applied to the historical benchmark, when CMS adjusts the
benchmark for the 6-month performance year described in Sec.
425.609(c), the adjustment will reflect the change in severity and case
mix between benchmark year 3 and CY 2019; (2) Regarding the annual
update to the historical benchmark, when CMS updates the benchmark for
the 6-month performance year described in Sec. 425.609(c), the update
to the benchmark will be based on growth between benchmark year 3 and
CY 2019.
We also proposed to incorporate references to Sec. 425.609 in the
following provisions regarding the calculation of shared savings and
shared losses, Sec. 425.604, proposed Sec. 425.605, Sec. 425.606,
and Sec. 425.610. For clarity and simplicity, we proposed to add a
paragraph to each of these sections explaining that shared savings or
shared losses for the 6-month performance years are calculated as
described in Sec. 425.609. That is, all calculations will be performed
using CY 2019 data in place of performance year data. In the November
2018 final rule, we finalized these amendments, as applicable to the
January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019 performance year with the
addition of provisions at Sec. 425.604(g), Sec. 425.606(j), and Sec.
425.610(j).
We are now finalizing the proposal to apply the same approach to
determining shared savings and shared losses for the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Therefore, in a new section of the regulations at Sec. 425.605(g), we
are specifying that shared savings or shared losses for the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, are
calculated as described in Sec. 425.609 for ACOs participating under
the BASIC track (as discussed in sections II.A.2. and II.A.3. of this
final rule). In addition, we are also finalizing our proposal to add a
new section of the regulations at Sec. 425.610(k), on the calculation
of shared savings and losses for the 6-month performance year from July
1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, for ACOs participating under the
ENHANCED track (as discussed in section II.A.2 of this final rule).
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we proposed to add a reference to
Sec. 425.609 in Sec. 425.204(g) to allow for consideration of claims
billed under merged and acquired entities' TINs for purposes of
establishing an ACO's benchmark for an agreement period that includes a
6-month performance year. Upon further consideration, we do not believe
it is necessary at this time to revise Sec. 425.204(g) to incorporate
a reference to Sec. 425.609. The provision at Sec. 425.204(g)
describes the use of certain claims in establishing an ACO's benchmark.
However, Sec. 425.609 only makes changes to the way in which the
benchmark is adjusted and updated to allow for a 6-month performance
year. For ACOs participating in a 6-month performance year (or
performance period) in 2019, the ACO's benchmark would already be
established under Sec. Sec. 425.601 (as finalized in this final rule),
425.602 or 425.603 (as applicable).
B. Fee-for-Service Benefit Enhancements
1. Background
As discussed in earlier rulemaking (for example, 80 FR 32759), we
believe
[[Page 67968]]
that models where ACOs bear a degree of financial risk have the
potential to induce more meaningful systematic change than one-sided
models. We explained that two-sided performance-based risk provides
stronger incentives for ACOs to achieve savings and, as discussed in
detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (see section V. of this final
rule), our experience with the program indicates that ACOs in two-sided
models generally perform better than ACOs that participate under a one-
sided model. ACOs that bear financial risk have a heightened incentive
to restrain wasteful spending by their ACO participants and ACO
providers/suppliers. This, in turn, may reduce the likelihood of over-
utilization of services. Relieving these ACOs of the burden of certain
statutory and regulatory requirements may provide ACOs with additional
flexibility to innovate further, which could in turn lead to even
greater cost savings, without inappropriate risk to program integrity.
In the December 2014 proposed rule (79 FR 72816 through 72826), we
discussed in detail a number of specific payment rules and other
program requirements for which we believed waivers could be necessary
under section 1899(f) of the Act to permit effective implementation of
two-sided performance-based risk models in the Shared Savings Program.
We invited comments on how these waivers could support ACOs' efforts to
increase quality and decrease costs under two-sided risk arrangements.
Based on review of these comments, in the June 2015 final rule (80 FR
32800 through 32808), we finalized a waiver of the requirement in
section 1861(i) of the Act for a 3-day inpatient hospital stay prior to
the provision of Medicare-covered post-hospital extended care services
for beneficiaries who are prospectively assigned to ACOs that
participate in Track 3 (Sec. 425.612). We refer to this waiver as the
SNF 3-day rule waiver. We established the SNF 3-day rule waiver to
provide an additional incentive for ACOs to take on risk by offering
greater flexibility for ACOs that have accepted the higher level of
performance-based risk under Track 3 to provide necessary care for
beneficiaries in the most appropriate care setting.
Section 50324 of the Bipartisan Budget Act added section 1899(l) of
the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395jjj(l)) to provide certain Shared Savings
Program ACOs the ability to provide telehealth services. Specifically,
beginning January 1, 2020, for telehealth services furnished by a
physician or practitioner participating in an applicable ACO, the home
of a beneficiary is treated as an originating site described in section
1834(m)(4)(C)(ii) and the geographic limitation under section
1834(m)(4)(C)(i) of the Act does not apply with respect to an
originating site described in section 1834(m)(4)(C)(ii), including the
home of the beneficiary.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41861-41867), we proposed
modifications to the existing SNF 3-day rule waiver and proposed to
establish regulations to govern telehealth services furnished in
accordance with section 1899(l) of the Act to prospectively assigned
beneficiaries by physicians and practitioners participating in certain
applicable ACOs. We also proposed to use our authority under section
1899(f) of the Act to waive the requirements of section
1834(m)(4)(C)(i) and (ii) of the Act as necessary to provide for a 90-
day grace period to allow for payment for telehealth services furnished
to a beneficiary who was prospectively assigned to an applicable ACO,
but was subsequently excluded from assignment to the ACO. We also
proposed to require that ACO participants hold beneficiaries
financially harmless for telehealth services that are not provided in
compliance with section 1899(l) of the Act or during the 90-day grace
period, as previously discussed.
2. Proposed Revisions
a. Shared Savings Program SNF 3-Day Rule Waiver
(1) Background
The SNF 3-day rule waiver under Sec. 425.612 allows for Medicare
payment for otherwise covered SNF services when ACO providers/suppliers
participating in eligible Track 3 ACOs admit eligible prospectively
assigned beneficiaries, or certain excluded beneficiaries during a
grace period, to an eligible SNF affiliate without a 3-day prior
inpatient hospitalization. All other provisions of the statute and
regulations regarding Medicare Part A post-hospital extended care
services continue to apply. This waiver became available starting
January 1, 2017, and all ACOs participating under Track 3 or applying
to participate under Track 3 are eligible to apply for the waiver.
We limited the waiver to ACOs that elect to participate under Track
3 because these ACOs are participating under two-sided risk and, under
the prospective assignment methodology used in Track 3, beneficiaries
are assigned to the ACO at the start of the performance year and remain
assigned for the entire year, unless they are excluded. Thus it is
clearer to the ACO which beneficiaries are eligible to receive services
under the waiver than it would be to an ACO under Track 1 or Track 2,
which use a preliminary prospective assignment methodology with
retrospective reconciliation (80 FR 32804). As we explained in the
August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41861), we continue to believe that it
is appropriate to limit the waiver to ACOs participating under a two-
sided risk model because, as discussed in the background to this
section, models under which ACOs bear a degree of financial risk hold
greater potential than one-sided models to induce more meaningful
systematic change, promote accountability for a patient population and
coordination of patient medical care, and encourage investment in
redesigned care processes. As a result, models under which ACOs bear a
degree of financial risk provide a stronger incentive for ACOs not to
over utilize services than do one-sided models. It is important to
establish clear policies as to the availability of the SNF 3-day rule
waiver for coverage of SNF services furnished to a particular
beneficiary without a prior 3 day inpatient stay to permit the ACOs and
their SNF affiliates to comply with the conditions of the waiver and to
facilitate our ability to monitor for misuse. It would also be feasible
to establish such clarity for ACOs electing to participate in a two-
sided risk model under a preliminary prospective assignment methodology
with retrospective reconciliation.
Under preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation, ACOs are given up-front information about their
preliminarily assigned FFS beneficiary population. This information is
updated quarterly to help ACOs refine their care coordination
activities. Under the revised criteria for sharing data with ACOs
finalized in the June 2015 final rule, beginning with performance year
2016, we have provided ACOs under preliminary prospective assignment
with quarterly and annual assignment lists that identify the
beneficiaries who are preliminarily prospectively assigned, as well as
beneficiaries who have received at least one primary care service in
the most recent 12-month period from an ACO participant that submits
claims for services used in the assignment methodology (see Sec.
425.702(c)(1)(ii)(A), and related discussion in 80 FR 32734 through
32737). The specific beneficiaries preliminarily assigned to an ACO
during each quarter can vary.
(2) Proposals
As described in section II.A.4.c. of the August 2018 proposed rule
(83 FR
[[Page 67969]]
41811) and again in this final rule, we proposed to allow ACOs to
select the beneficiary assignment methodology to be applied at the
start of their agreement period (prospective assignment or preliminary
prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation) and the
opportunity to elect to change this selection prior to the start of
each performance year. Further, as described in sections II.A.3. and
II.A.4.b. of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41801 & 41810) and
again in this final rule, we proposed that BASIC track ACOs entering
the track's glide path under a one-sided model would be automatically
transitioned to a two-sided model during their agreement period and
could elect to enter two-sided risk more quickly (prior to the start of
their agreement period or as part of an annual election to move to a
higher level of risk within the BASIC track).
As described in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41861), in
light of these proposed flexibilities for program participation, as
well as our experience in providing ACOs under preliminary prospective
assignment with data on populations of beneficiaries, we stated that it
would be appropriate to expand eligibility for the SNF 3-day rule
waiver to include ACOs participating in a two-sided model under
preliminary prospective assignment. As explained in the August 2018
proposed rule and again in this section, we originally excluded Track 2
ACOs, which participate under two-sided risk, from eligibility for the
SNF 3-day rule waiver because beneficiaries are assigned to Track 2
ACOs using a preliminary prospective assignment methodology with
retrospective reconciliation and thus it could be unclear to ACOs which
beneficiaries would be eligible to receive services under the waiver.
We proposed that risk-bearing ACOs selecting preliminary prospective
assignment with retrospective reconciliation should be offered the same
tools and flexibility to increase quality and decrease costs that are
available to ACOs electing prospective assignment, to the maximum
extent possible. We stated that it would be possible to provide ACOs
that select preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation with more clarity regarding which beneficiaries may be
eligible to receive services under the waiver if we were to establish a
cumulative list of beneficiaries preliminarily assigned to the ACO
during the performance year. It would be appropriate to establish such
a cumulative list because the beneficiaries preliminarily assigned to
an ACO may vary during each quarter of a performance year.
Under preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation, once a beneficiary receives at least one primary care
service furnished by an ACO participant, the ACO has an incentive to
coordinate care of the Medicare beneficiary, including SNF services,
for the remainder of the performance year because of the potential for
the beneficiary to be assigned to the ACO for the performance year.
Under our proposed approach, we would not remove preliminarily
prospectively assigned beneficiaries from the list of beneficiaries
eligible to receive SNF services under the waiver on a quarterly basis.
Instead, once a beneficiary is listed as preliminarily prospectively
assigned to an eligible ACO for the performance year, according to the
assignment lists provided by CMS to an ACO at the beginning of each
performance year and for quarters 1, 2, and 3 of each performance year,
then the SNF 3-day rule waiver would remain available with respect to
otherwise covered SNF services furnished to that beneficiary by a SNF
affiliate of the ACO, consistent with the requirements of Sec.
425.612(a), for the remainder of the performance year.
We proposed that the waiver would be limited to SNF services
provided after the beneficiary first appeared on the preliminary
prospective assignment list for the performance year, and that a
beneficiary would no longer be eligible to receive covered services
under the waiver if he or she subsequently enrolls in a Medicare group
(private) health plan or is otherwise no longer enrolled in Part A and
Part B. In other words, ACOs participating in a performance-based risk
track and under preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation would receive an initial performance year assignment
list followed by assignment lists for quarters 1, 2, and 3 of each
performance year, and the SNF 3-day rule waiver would be available with
respect to all beneficiaries who have been identified as preliminarily
prospectively assigned to the ACO on one or more of these four
assignment lists, unless they enroll in a Medicare group health plan or
are no longer enrolled in both Part A and Part B. Providers and
suppliers are expected to confirm a beneficiary's health insurance
coverage to determine if they are eligible for FFS benefits. In
addition, we noted that under existing Medicare payment policies,
services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries outside the U.S. are not
payable except under very limited circumstances. Therefore, in general,
a waiver-eligible beneficiary who resides outside the U.S. during a
performance year would technically remain eligible to receive SNF
services furnished in accordance with the waiver, but SNF services
furnished to the beneficiary outside the U.S. would not be payable.
We note that our proposal to allow preliminarily prospectively
assigned beneficiaries to remain eligible for the SNF 3-day rule waiver
until the end of the performance year may include beneficiaries who
ultimately are excluded from assignment to the ACO based upon their
assignment to another Shared Savings Program ACO or their alignment
with an entity participating in another shared savings initiative.
Thus, a beneficiary may be eligible for admission under a SNF 3-day
rule waiver based on being preliminarily prospectively assigned to more
than one ACO during a performance year. As previously discussed, we
believe ACOs that bear a degree of financial risk have a strong
incentive to manage the care for all beneficiaries who appear on any
preliminary prospective assignment list during the year and to continue
to focus on furnishing appropriate levels of care because they do not
know which beneficiaries ultimately will be assigned to the ACO for the
performance year. Further, because there remains the possibility that a
beneficiary could be preliminarily prospectively assigned to an ACO at
the beginning of the year, not preliminarily assigned in a subsequent
quarter, but then retrospectively assigned to the ACO at the end of the
performance year, we believe it is appropriate that preliminarily
prospectively assigned beneficiaries remain eligible to receive
services under the SNF 3-day rule waiver for the remainder of the
performance year to aid ACOs in coordinating the care of their entire
beneficiary population. Because the ACO will ultimately be held
responsible for the quality and costs of the care furnished to all
beneficiaries who are assigned at the end of the performance year, we
believe the ACO should have the flexibility to use the SNF 3-day rule
waiver to permit any beneficiary who has been identified as
preliminarily prospectively assigned to the ACO during the performance
year to receive covered SNF services without a prior 3 day hospital
stay when clinically appropriate. For this reason, we do not believe it
is necessary to extend the 90-day grace period that applies to
beneficiaries assigned to waiver-approved ACOs participating under the
prospective assignment
[[Page 67970]]
methodology to include beneficiaries who are preliminarily
prospectively assigned to a waiver-approved ACO. Rather, beneficiaries
who are preliminarily prospectively assigned to a waiver-approved ACO
will remain eligible to receive services furnished in accordance with
the SNF 3-day rule waiver for the remainder of that performance year
unless they enroll in a Medicare group health plan or are otherwise no
longer enrolled in Part A and Part B. In addition, in order to help
protect beneficiaries from incurring significant financial liability
for SNF services received without a prior 3-day inpatient stay after an
ACO's termination date, we would also like to clarify that an ACO must
include, as a part of the notice of termination to ACO participants
under Sec. 425.221(a)(1)(i), a statement that its ACO participants,
ACO providers/suppliers, and SNF affiliates may no longer use the SNF
3-day rule waiver after the ACO's date of termination. We would also
like to clarify that if a beneficiary is admitted to a SNF prior to an
ACO's termination date, and all requirements of the SNF 3-day rule
waiver are met, the SNF services furnished without a prior 3-day stay
would be covered under the SNF 3-day rule waiver.
In summary, we proposed to revise the regulations at Sec.
425.612(a)(1) to expand eligibility for the SNF 3-day rule waiver to
include ACOs participating in a two-sided model under preliminary
prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation. The SNF 3-day
rule waiver would be available for such ACOs with respect to all
beneficiaries who have been identified as preliminarily prospectively
assigned to the ACO on the initial performance year assignment list or
on one or more assignment lists for quarters 1, 2, and 3 of the
performance year, for SNF services provided after the beneficiary first
appeared on one of the assignment lists for the applicable performance
year. The beneficiary would remain eligible to receive SNF services
furnished in accordance with the waiver unless he or she is no longer
eligible for assignment to the ACO because he or she is no longer
enrolled in both Part A and Part B or has enrolled in a Medicare group
health plan.
Finally, as described in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR
41862), stakeholders representing rural health providers have pointed
out that the SNF 3-day rule waiver is not currently available for SNF
services furnished by critical access hospitals and other small, rural
hospitals operating under a swing bed agreement. Section 1883 of the
Act permits certain small, rural hospitals to enter into a swing bed
agreement, under which the hospital can use its beds, as needed, to
provide either acute or SNF care. As defined in the regulations at 42
CFR 413.114, a swing bed hospital is a hospital or CAH participating in
Medicare that has CMS approval to provide post-hospital SNF care and
meets certain requirements. These stakeholders indicate that because
there are fewer SNFs in rural areas, there are fewer opportunities for
rural ACOs to enter into agreements with SNF affiliates. These
stakeholders also believe that the current policy may disadvantage
beneficiaries living in rural areas who may not be in close proximity
to a SNF and would need to travel longer distances to benefit from the
SNF 3-day rule waiver. The stakeholders requested that we revise the
regulations to permit providers that furnish SNF services under a swing
bed agreement to be eligible to partner with ACOs for purposes of the
SNF 3-day rule waiver.
In order to furnish SNF services under a swing bed agreement,
hospitals must be substantially in compliance with the SNF
participation requirements specified at 42 CFR 482.58(b), whereas CAHs
must be substantially in compliance with the SNF participation
requirements specified at 42 CFR 485.645(d). However, currently,
providers furnishing SNF services under a swing bed agreement are not
eligible to partner and enter into written agreements with ACOs for
purposes of the SNF 3-day rule waiver because: (1) The SNF 3-day rule
waiver under the Shared Savings Program regulations at Sec.
425.612(a)(1) waives the requirement for a 3-day prior inpatient
hospitalization only with respect to otherwise covered SNF services
furnished by an eligible SNF and does not extend to otherwise covered
post-hospital extended care services furnished by a provider under a
swing bed agreement; and (2) CAHs and other rural hospitals furnishing
SNF services under swing bed agreements are not included in the CMS 5-
star Quality Rating System and, therefore, cannot meet the requirement
at Sec. 425.612(a)(1)(iii)(A) that, to be eligible to partner with an
ACO for purposes of the SNF 3-day rule waiver, the SNF must have and
maintain an overall rating of 3 or higher under the CMS 5-star Quality
Rating System.
For the reasons described in the June 2015 final rule (80 FR
32804), we believe it is necessary to offer ACOs participating under
two-sided risk models additional tools and flexibility to manage and
coordinate care for their assigned beneficiaries, including the
flexibility to admit a beneficiary for SNF-level care without a prior
3-day inpatient hospital stay. We agree with stakeholders that there
are fewer SNFs in rural areas. Therefore, we agree with rural
stakeholders that risk-bearing ACOs in rural areas would be better able
to coordinate and manage care, and thus to control unnecessary costs,
if the SNF 3-day rule waiver extended to otherwise covered SNF services
provided by a hospital or CAH under a swing bed agreement. We believe
this proposal would primarily benefit ACOs located in rural areas
because most CAHs and hospitals that are approved to furnish post-acute
SNF-level care via a swing bed agreement are located in rural areas.
Consistent with this proposal, we also proposed to revise the
regulations governing the SNF 3-day rule waiver at Sec. 425.612(a)(1)
to indicate that, for purposes of determining eligibility to partner
with an ACO for the SNF 3-day rule waiver, SNFs include providers
furnishing SNF services under swing bed arrangements. In addition, we
proposed to revise Sec. 425.612(a)(1)(iii)(A) to specify that the
minimum 3-star rating requirement applies only if the provider
furnishing SNF services is eligible to be included in the CMS 5-star
Quality Rating System. We do not have a comparable data element to the
CMS 5-star Quality Rating System for hospitals and CAHs under swing bed
agreements; however, under Sec. 425.612(d)(2), we monitor and audit
the use of payment waivers in accordance with Sec. 425.316. We will
continue to monitor the use of the SNF 3-Day Rule Waiver and reserve
the right to terminate an ACO's SNF 3-day rule waiver if the waiver is
used inappropriately or beneficiaries are not receiving appropriate
care.
Additionally, we note the possibility that a beneficiary could be
admitted to a hospital or CAH, have an inpatient stay of less than 3
days, and then be admitted to the same hospital or CAH under its swing
bed agreement. As previously discussed, we believe ACOs that bear a
degree of financial risk have a stronger incentive not to over utilize
services and have an incentive to recommend a beneficiary for admission
to a SNF only when it is medically appropriate. We also note this
scenario could occur when a beneficiary meets the generally applicable
3-day stay requirement. Thus, we do not believe extending the SNF 3-day
rule waiver to include services furnished by a hospital or CAH under a
swing bed agreement would create a new gaming opportunity.
To reduce burden and confusion for eligible ACOs not currently
approved for a SNF 3-day rule waiver, we
[[Page 67971]]
proposed that these revisions would be applicable for SNF 3-day rule
waivers approved for performance years beginning on July 1, 2019, and
in subsequent years. This would allow for one, as opposed to multiple,
application deadlines thus reducing the overall burden for ACOs
applying for the waiver and prevent confusion over ACO outreach and
communication materials related to application deadlines. Because we
are forgoing the application cycle for a January 1, 2019 start date, we
proposed to apply the revisions to ACOs approved to use the SNF 3-day
rule waiver for performance years beginning on July 1, 2019, and in
subsequent years. This includes both ACOs that start a new agreement
period under the proposed new participation options on July 1, 2019,
and those ACOs that are applying for a waiver during the term of an
existing participation agreement. For ACOs currently participating in
the Shared Savings Program with an agreement period beginning in 2017
or 2018, that have previously been approved for a SNF 3-day rule
waiver, the proposed revisions to the SNF 3-day rule waiver would be
applicable starting on July 1, 2019, and for all subsequent performance
years. ACOs with an approved SNF 3-day rule waiver would be able to
modify their 2019 SNF affiliate list for the performance year beginning
on January 1, 2019; however, they would not be able to add a hospital
or CAH operating under a swing bed agreement to their SNF affiliate
list until the July 1, 2019 change request review cycle. CMS would
notify all ACOs, including ACOs with a 12 month performance year 2019,
of the schedule for this change request review cycle.
Consistent with these proposed revisions to the SNF 3-day rule
waiver, we proposed to add a new provision at Sec. 425.612(a)(1)(vi)
to allow ACOs participating in performance-based risk within the BASIC
track or ACOs participating in Track 3 or the ENHANCED track to request
to use the SNF 3-day rule waiver. We did not propose to make the
revisions to the SNF 3-day rule waiver applicable for Track 2 ACOs
because we proposed to phase out Track 2, as discussed at section
II.A.2. of this final rule. ACOs currently participating under Track 2
that choose to terminate their existing participation agreement and
reapply to the Shared Savings Program under the ENHANCED track or BASIC
track, at the highest level of risk and potential reward, as described
under section II.A.2. of this final rule, would be eligible to apply
for the SNF 3-day rule waiver.
For the reasons discussed in this section, we believe that the
proposed modifications of the SNF 3-day rule waiver would provide
additional incentives for ACOs to participate in the Shared Savings
Program under performance-based risk and are necessary to support ACO
efforts to increase quality and decrease costs under performance-based
risk arrangements. We invited comments on these proposals and related
issues.
Comment: Many commenters supported our proposed changes to the SNF
3-day rule waiver. In particular, some reasons commenters stated that
they were supportive of the proposed changes to the SNF 3-day rule
waiver were that it supports patient engagement, care coordination, and
aids ACOs in increasing quality and reducing unnecessary costs. Many
commenters were particularly supportive of our proposal to allow two-
sided ACOs that selected the preliminary prospective with retrospective
reconciliation assignment methodology to apply for the SNF 3-day rule
waiver as well as our proposal to allow facilities under a swing bed
agreement to partner with ACOs as SNF affiliates.
Response: We appreciate commenters' support for the proposed
policies regarding the SNF 3-day rule waiver.
Comment: One commenter opposed allowing ACOs under the preliminary
prospective with retrospective reconciliation assignment methodology
the opportunity to apply for a SNF 3-day rule waiver. The commenter
stated there is potential for mishaps related to cost sharing and
benefit availability for beneficiaries who ultimately are not assigned
to an ACO.
Response: We proposed that beneficiaries who appear on the initial,
Q1, Q2, and Q3 preliminary prospective assignment list reports will
remain eligible for the SNF-3 day rule waiver for the performance year,
unless they are no longer eligible for both Part A and Part B or enroll
in a Medicare group health plan, in order to minimize confusion
concerning beneficiary eligibility. We also note that FFS eligibility
status for all beneficiaries, regardless of assignment methodology, may
change; therefore, beneficiary insurance coverage and cost sharing
responsibilities should be verified at the time they receive services.
Therefore, we disagree with the commenter that there are special
concerns related to whether a beneficiary is ultimately assigned to an
ACO under preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation with respect to the SNF 3-day rule waiver, and we
decline to modify the proposal based on this comment.
Comment: A few commenters opposed the proposal to allow facilities
under a swing bed agreements to partner with ACOs as SNF affiliates.
Specifically, some commenters stated it would represent an unfair trade
practice and would be inconsistent with restrictions applied to
traditional SNFs. One commenter suggested continuously monitoring SNF
affiliates under swing bed agreements to ensure they maintain a high-
level of care. Other commenters suggested requiring facilities under
swing bed agreements to provide a sufficient demonstration of hardship
in placement of discharging patients with adequate post-acute care in
order to be eligible to partner with an ACO as a SNF affiliate.
Response: As we noted previously, in order to furnish SNF services
under a swing bed agreement, hospitals must be substantially in
compliance with the SNF participation requirements specified at 42 CFR
482.58(b), and CAHs must be substantially in compliance with the SNF
participation requirements specified at 42 CFR 485.645(d). While we
believe the CMS 5-Star Quality Rating System is a good measure to help
assure beneficiaries that the SNF affiliate provides quality care,
there are instances when the Star Quality Rating System does not apply,
and we believe it is important to provide beneficiaries with the
opportunity to be admitted to a SNF if their health care providers
believe they do not require a 3-day inpatient stay. In order to provide
beneficiaries in rural areas the opportunity to use the SNF 3-day rule
waiver, we believe it is necessary to provide an exception to the CMS
5-Star Quality Rating System requirement for SNF providers furnishing
SNF services under a swing bed arrangement. We will monitor the use of
the SNF 3-Day Rule Waiver and reserve the right to terminate an ACO's
SNF 3-day rule waiver if the waiver is used inappropriately or
beneficiaries are not receiving appropriate care. We do not believe it
is necessary to require hospitals or CAHs under a swing bed agreements
to demonstrate hardship in placement of discharging patients with
adequate post-acute care as they have already sufficiently demonstrated
to CMS they meet the requirements to operate under a swing bed
agreement. Beneficiaries in rural areas have fewer post-acute care
facility options, therefore we do not believe it is necessary to
require facilities in rural areas to provide further documentation
demonstrating the number of facilities
[[Page 67972]]
located near their rural beneficiary populations.
Comment: Some commenters disagreed with limiting the SNF 3-day rule
waiver to ACOs participating under performance-based risk tracks. These
commenters suggested allowing all Shared Savings Program ACOs to apply
for the SNF-3-day rule waiver. One commenter provided the following
reasons in support of this suggestion: (1) ACOs should have the ability
to reform their practice patterns before they are required to take on
financial risk, (2) beneficiaries may experience ``iatrogenic harm''
from a hospital stay longer than they need, and (3) the Shared Savings
Program has experienced reductions in SNF utilizations demonstrating
that ACOs are not interested in over utilizing SNF care.
Response: We agree with commenters that ACOs participating in the
Shared Savings Program have incentives to not over utilize care and
reform their practice patterns; however, based on our experience with
Track 1 we have learned that a SNF 3-day rule waiver is not a necessary
incentive to encourage ACOs to participate under a one-sided model. We
continue to believe that using the authority under section 1899(f) of
the Act to waive certain payment or other program requirements may be
necessary to permit effective implementation of two-sided performance-
based risk tracks under the Shared Savings Program (80 FR 32799).
Comment: One commenter opposed further modifications to the SNF 3-
day rule waiver until CMS evaluates the impact the waiver has had on
patient outcomes in the program.
Response: We continue to monitor the use of the SNF 3-day rule
waiver and reserve the right to terminate an ACO's SNF 3-day rule
waiver if the waiver is used inappropriately or beneficiaries are not
receiving appropriate care. To date, we have not observed misuse of the
SNF 3-day rule waiver, nor have we received complaints from (or about)
beneficiaries negatively impacted by the SNF 3-day rule waiver. We will
continue to monitor the implementation of this waiver.
Comment: Several commenters submitted suggestions concerning our
requirement that SNF affiliates have and maintain an overall rating of
3 or higher under the CMS 5-star Quality Rating System (Sec.
425.612(a)(1)(iii)(A)). Commenters report that the measure is difficult
to attain, which limits the SNFs eligible to partner with ACOs, reduces
the effectiveness of the waiver, and limits beneficiary choice. Some
commenters suggested modifying this requirement to use only one star
rating data element instead of the overall score. One commenter
suggested that as APMs, ACOs are self-regulated to provide low-cost,
high-quality care; therefore; the star rating requirement is not
necessary. Some commenters suggested we provide a list of SNFs that are
eligible SNF affiliates for ACOs to partner with.
Response: We did not propose to change the requirement for SNF
affiliates that are not operating under a swing bed arrangement to have
and maintain an overall rating of 3 or higher under the CMS 5-star
Quality Rating System in the proposed rule. We decline at this time to
remove the star rating requirement for facilities eligible for a rating
under the CMS 5-star Quality Rating System because, as stated in
earlier rulemaking, we believe this requirement provides beneficiaries
with evidence that the SNF provides quality care (80 FR 32805). We will
continue to evaluate the requirements of the SNF 3-day rule waiver and
will propose any modifications we believe may be necessary to aid ACOs
in successfully coordinating and delivering high quality beneficiary
care in future rulemaking. We do not believe it is necessary to produce
a list of SNF affiliates for ACOs to partner with since the CMS 5-star
Quality Rating System is publicly available for both ACOs and
beneficiaries to view the overall quality score for Medicare enrolled
SNFs.
Comment: A few commenters suggested we modify the beneficiary
eligibility requirement which limits the SNF 3-day rule waiver to
beneficiaries that do not currently reside in a SNF or other long-term
care facility (Sec. 425.602(a)(1)(ii)(B)). Commenters stated these
beneficiaries also provide the opportunity to lower costs if they
become eligible for the SNF 3-day rule waiver. One commenter suggested
all beneficiaries seen at a hospital on an ACO participant list should
be eligible for the SNF 3-day rule waiver. Another commenter suggested
all assignable beneficiaries for ACOs under the prospective assignment
methodology should become eligible for the SNF 3-day rule waiver as
this would be equitable to the proposal to include quarterly
beneficiaries assigned under the preliminary prospective with
retrospective reconciliation assignment methodology.
Response: We did not propose any modifications to Sec.
425.602(a)(1)(ii)(B) at this time. However, we have concerns that long-
term care facilities might have an incentive to inappropriately apply
the SNF 3-day rule waiver to beneficiaries residing in their facility
as the payment rate is different between the two types of facility
stays. Consistent with the approach taken under the Pioneer ACO Model
and Next Generation ACO Model, we do not consider independent or
assisted living facilities to be long-term care settings for purposes
of determining a beneficiary's eligibility to receive SNF services
pursuant to the SNF 3-day rule waiver. We do not believe it is
appropriate to extend the SNF 3-day rule waiver to all beneficiaries
who are seen at a hospital on an ACO's participant list or
beneficiaries assignable to an ACO under the prospective assignment
methodology. Under Sec. 425.702(c)(1)(ii)(C), we provide ACOs that
have selected the prospective assignment methodology with a list of
their prospectively assigned beneficiaries so that the ACO knows the
universe of beneficiaries who could be assigned to the ACO for the
performance year, and we believe it is appropriate for the waiver to be
used with respect to those beneficiaries. Additionally, ACOs under the
prospective assignment methodology have their assignment list set at
the start of each performance year and no beneficiaries are added to
the list. Assignable beneficiaries will not be added during the
performance year to the assigned beneficiary population for an ACO
under the prospective assignment methodology for purposes of either the
quality reporting sample or financial reconciliation. Therefore, we do
not believe it is appropriate to extend the SNF-3-day rule waiver to
beneficiaries who cannot be included on the final list of assigned
beneficiaries for an ACO. We do not believe these suggested
modifications to the SNF 3-day rule waiver would be necessary to permit
effective implementation of two-sided performance-based risk tracks
under the Shared Savings Program (80 FR 32799).
Comment: Some commenters suggested we revise Sec.
425.612(a)(1)(ii)(G) which requires a beneficiary to ``have been
evaluated and approved for admission to the SNF within 3 days prior to
the SNF admission by an ACO provider/supplier who is a physician'' to
be eligible for the SNF 3-day rule waiver. Commenters suggested we
allow other qualified clinicians to evaluate the beneficiary. A few
commenters stated that this requirement creates additional burden and
sometimes additional billable services when a physician must evaluate a
beneficiary who has already been evaluated by an ACO provider/supplier
who is a NP, PA, or CNS.
Response: In order to be eligible to receive covered SNF services
under the
[[Page 67973]]
SNF 3-day rule waiver, a beneficiary must have been evaluated and
approved for admission to the SNF within 3 days prior to the admission
by an ACO provider/supplier who is a physician, consistent with the
beneficiary evaluation and admission plan. We do not believe that this
criterion precludes review and approval by an ACO provider/supplier who
is a physician of an evaluation conducted by another provider/supplier,
for example, approval by the ACO medical director or other ACO
provider/supplier who is a physician involved in the beneficiary's care
of a recommendation for SNF admission by an NP, PA, of CNS who has
directly evaluated the beneficiary. Additionally, under Sec. 425.613,
ACO providers/suppliers in risk-bearing ACOs under the prospective
assignment methodology may be able to conduct the evaluation via a
telehealth service, if all applicable requirements are met.
Comment: One commenter recommended we require ACOs to enhance
communication and interoperability of EHRs with SNFs. The commenter
suggested that improving the dissemination of electronic health records
among providers will result in improved coordination of services and
reduced inefficiencies as patients' transition from one care setting to
another. The commenter further supported this suggestion stating it
aligns with CMS' goal of improved interoperability and would result in
improved services.
Response: While we believe EHRs are mutually beneficial for ACOs
and SNFs, and we encourage their use among health care providers, we
decline to require SNF affiliates to implement EHRs to align with the
ACOs they partner with. We are concerned such a requirement could
create inefficiencies or have other unintended consequences, as SNF
affiliates are not required to remain exclusive to a single ACO. SNF
affiliates can partner with more than one Shared Savings Program ACO as
well as with ACOs participating in other Medicare shared savings
initiatives. In addition, such a requirement would be beyond the scope
of the policies proposed in the August 2018 proposed rule.
Final Action: After considering the comments received in response
to the proposals to revise the SNF 3-day rule waiver, we are finalizing
the policies as proposed. Specifically, we are finalizing the revisions
to Sec. 425.612(a)(1) to expand eligibility for the SNF 3-day rule
waiver to include ACOs participating in a two-sided model under
preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective reconciliation.
We are finalizing revisions to Sec. 425.612(a)(1) to indicate that,
for purposes of determining eligibility to partner with an ACO for the
SNF 3-day rule waiver, SNFs include providers furnishing SNF services
under swing bed arrangements. Additionally, we are finalizing revisions
to Sec. 425.612(a)(1)(iii)(A) to specify that the minimum 3-star
rating requirement applies only if the provider furnishing SNF services
is eligible to be included in the CMS 5-star Quality Rating System.
Lastly, we are finalizing a new provision at Sec. 425.612(a)(1)(vi) to
allow ACOs participating in performance-based risk within the BASIC
track or ACOs participating in Track 3 or the ENHANCED track to request
to use the SNF 3-day rule waiver.
b. Billing and Payment for Telehealth Services
(1) Background
Under section 1834(m) of the Act, Medicare pays for certain Part B
telehealth services furnished by a physician or practitioner under
certain conditions, even though the physician or practitioner is not in
the same location as the beneficiary. As of 2018, the telehealth
services must be furnished to a beneficiary located in one of the types
of originating sites specified in section 1834(m)(4)(C)(ii) of the Act
and the originating site must satisfy at least one of the requirements
of section 1834(m)(4)(C)(i)(I) through (III) of the Act. An originating
site is the location at which a beneficiary who is eligible to receive
a telehealth service is located at the time the service is furnished
via a telecommunications system.
Generally, for Medicare payment to be made for telehealth services
under the PFS, several conditions must be met (Sec. 410.78(b)).
Specifically, the service must be on the Medicare list of telehealth
services and must meet all of the following requirements for payment:
The telehealth service must be furnished via an
interactive telecommunications system, as defined at Sec.
410.78(a)(3). CMS pays for telehealth services provided through
asynchronous (that is, store and forward) technologies, defined at
Sec. 410.78(a)(1), only for Federal telemedicine demonstration
programs conducted in Alaska or Hawaii.
The service must be furnished to an eligible
beneficiary by a physician or other practitioner specified at Sec.
410.78(b)(2) who is licensed to furnish the service under State law
as specified at Sec. 410.78(b)(1).
The eligible beneficiary must be located at an
originating site at the time the service being furnished via a
telecommunications system occurs. The eligible originating sites are
specified in section 1834(m)(4)(C)(ii) of the Act and Sec.
410.78(b)(3) and, for telehealth services furnished during 2018,
include the following: The office of a physician or practitioner, a
CAH, RHC, FQHC, hospital, hospital-based or CAH-based renal dialysis
center (including satellites), SNF, and community mental health
center.
As of 2018, the originating site must be in a location
specified in section 1834(m)(4)(C)(i) of the Act and Sec.
410.78(b)(4). The site must be located in a health professional
shortage area that is either outside of a Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA) or within a rural census tract of an MSA, located in a
county that is not included in an MSA, or be participating in a
Federal telemedicine demonstration project that has been approved
by, or receives funding from, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services as of December 31, 2000.
When these conditions are met, Medicare pays a facility fee to the
originating site and provides separate payment to the distant site
practitioner for the service.
Section 1834(m)(4)(F)(i) of the Act defines Medicare telehealth
services to include professional consultations, office visits, office
psychiatry services, and any additional service specified by the
Secretary, when furnished via a telecommunications system. A list of
Medicare telehealth services is available through the CMS website (at
https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-General-Information/Telehealth/Telehealth-Codes.html). Under section 1834(m)(4)(F)(ii) of the Act, CMS
has an annual process to consider additions to and deletions from the
list of telehealth services. CMS does not include any services as
telehealth services when Medicare does not otherwise make a separate
payment for them.
Under the Next Generation ACO Model, the Innovation Center has been
testing a Telehealth Expansion Benefit Enhancement under which CMS has
waived the geographic and originating site requirements for services
that are on the list of telehealth services when furnished to aligned
beneficiaries by eligible telehealth practitioners (see the CMS website
at https://innovation.cms.gov/Files/x/nextgenaco-telehealthwaiver.pdf).
The purpose of this waiver is to test whether giving participating ACOs
the flexibility to furnish telehealth services in more geographic areas
and from the beneficiary's home will lower costs, improve quality, and
better engage beneficiaries in their care.
(2) Provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act for Telehealth in the
Shared Savings Program
Section 50324 of the Bipartisan Budget Act amends section 1899 of
the Act to add a new subsection (l) to provide certain ACOs the ability
to expand the use of telehealth. The Bipartisan Budget Act provides
that,
[[Page 67974]]
with respect to telehealth services for which payment would otherwise
be made that are furnished on or after January 1, 2020 by a physician
or practitioner participating in an applicable ACO to a Medicare FFS
beneficiary prospectively assigned to the applicable ACO, the following
shall apply: (1) The home of a beneficiary shall be treated as an
originating site described in section 1834(m)(4)(C)(ii) of the Act, and
(2) the geographic limitation under section 1834(m)(4)(C)(i) of the Act
shall not apply with respect to an originating site, including the home
of a beneficiary, subject to State licensing requirements. The
Bipartisan Budget Act defines the home of a beneficiary as the place of
residence used as the home of a Medicare FFS beneficiary.
The Bipartisan Budget Act defines an ``applicable ACO'' as an ACO
participating in a two-sided model of the Shared Savings Program (as
described in Sec. 425.600(a)) or a two-sided model tested or expanded
under section 1115A of the Act, for which FFS beneficiaries are
assigned to the ACO using a prospective assignment method.
The Bipartisan Budget Act also provides that, in the case where the
home of the beneficiary is the originating site, there shall be no
facility fee paid to the originating site. It further provides that no
payment may be made for telehealth services furnished in the home of
the beneficiary when such services are inappropriate to furnish in the
home setting, such as services that are typically furnished in
inpatient settings such as a hospital.
Lastly, the Bipartisan Budget Act requires the Secretary to conduct
a study on the implementation of section 1899(l) of the Act that
includes an analysis of the utilization of, and expenditures for,
telehealth services under section 1899(l). No later than January 1,
2026, the Secretary must submit a report to Congress containing the
results of the study, together with recommendations for legislation and
administrative action as the Secretary determines appropriate.
(3) Proposals
We proposed to add a new section of the Shared Savings Program
regulations at Sec. 425.613 to govern the payment for certain
telehealth services furnished, in accordance with section 1899(l) of
the Act, as added by the Bipartisan Budget Act. As required by section
1899(l) of the Act, we proposed to treat the beneficiary's home as an
originating site and not to apply the originating site geographic
restrictions under section 1834(m)(4)(C)(i) of the Act for telehealth
services furnished by a physician or practitioner participating in an
applicable ACO. Thus, we proposed to make payment to a physician or
practitioner billing though the TIN of an ACO participant in an
applicable ACO for furnishing otherwise covered telehealth services to
beneficiaries prospectively assigned to the applicable ACO, including
when the originating site is the beneficiary's home and without regard
to the geographic limitations under section 1834(m)(4)(C)(i) of the
Act. As we note in section II.A.4.c. of the August 2018 proposed rule
(83 FR 41811) and again in this final rule, the Shared Savings Program
offers two similar, but distinct, assignment methodologies, prospective
assignment and preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation. We proposed to apply these policies regarding payment
for telehealth services to ACOs under a two-sided model that
participate under the prospective assignment method. We believed that
these ACOs meet the definition of applicable ACO under section
1899(l)(2)(A) of the Act. Because final assignment is not performed
under the preliminary prospective assignment methodology until after
the end of the performance year, we do not believe it is ``a
prospective assignment method'' as required under section
1899(l)(2)(A)(ii). Although we do not believe that ACOs that
participate under the preliminary prospective assignment with
retrospective reconciliation method meet the definition of an
applicable ACO, we welcomed comments on our interpretation of this
provision.
We proposed that the policies governing telehealth services
furnished in accordance with section 1899(l) of the Act would be
effective for telehealth services furnished in performance years
beginning in 2020 and subsequent years by physicians or practitioners
participating in ACOs that are operating under a two-sided model with a
prospective assignment methodology for the applicable performance year.
This would include physicians and practitioners participating in ACOs
with a prospective assignment method for a performance year in the
ENHANCED track (including Track 3 ACOs with an agreement period
starting in 2018 or on January 1, 2019), or in levels C, D, or E of the
BASIC track. Because ACOs participating in the Track 1+ Model are
participating in a two-sided model tested under section 1115A and use
prospective assignment, we note that physicians and practitioners
participating in Track 1+ ACOs would also be able to furnish and be
paid for telehealth services in accordance with section 1899(l) of the
Act. Physicians and practitioners participating in Track 2 ACOs would
not be able to furnish and be paid for telehealth services in
accordance with section 1899(l) of the Act because Track 2 ACOs do not
participate under a prospective assignment methodology. Additionally,
the ability to furnish and be paid for telehealth services in
accordance with section 1899(l) of the Act would not extend beyond the
term of the ACO's participation agreement. If CMS terminates an ACO's
participation agreement under Sec. 425.218, then the ability of
physicians and other practitioners billing through the TIN of an ACO
participant to furnish and be paid for telehealth services in
accordance with section 1899(l) of the Act will end on the date
specified in the notice of termination. Further, to help protect
beneficiaries from potential exposure to significant financial
responsibility. we would also like to clarify that an ACO must include,
as a part of its notice of termination to ACO participants under Sec.
425.221(a)(1)(i), a statement that physicians and other practitioners
who bill through the TIN of an ACO participant can no longer furnish
and be paid for telehealth services in accordance with section 1899(l)
of the Act after the ACO's date of termination.
As discussed in section II.A.4. of the August 2018 proposed rule
(83 FR 41810) and again in this final rule, we proposed to allow ACOs
in the BASIC and ENHANCED tracks the opportunity to change their
beneficiary assignment methodology on an annual basis. As a result, the
ability of physicians and other practitioners billing through the TIN
of an ACO participant in these ACOs to furnish and be paid for
telehealth services in accordance with section 1899(l) of the Act could
change from year to year depending on the ACO's choice of assignment
methodology. Should an ACO in the BASIC track or ENHANCED track change
from the prospective assignment methodology to preliminary prospective
assignment methodology with retrospective reconciliation for a
performance year, the ACO would no longer satisfy the requirements to
be an applicable ACO for that year and physicians and other
practitioners billing through the TIN of an ACO participant in that ACO
could only furnish and be paid for telehealth services if the services
meet all applicable requirements, including the
[[Page 67975]]
originating site requirements, under section 1834(m)(4)(C) of the Act.
We proposed that the beneficiary's home would be a permissible
originating site type for telehealth services furnished by a physician
or practitioner participating in an applicable ACO. Under this
proposal, in addition to being eligible for payment for telehealth
services when the originating site is one of the types of originating
sites specified in section 1834(m)(4)(C)(ii) of the Act, a physician or
other practitioner billing through the TIN of an ACO participant in an
applicable ACO could also furnish and be paid for such services when
the originating site is the beneficiary's home (assuming all other
requirements are met). As discussed earlier, section 1899(l)(1)(A) of
the Act, as added by section 50324 of the Bipartisan Budget Act,
defines a beneficiary's home to be the place of residence used as the
home of the beneficiary. In addition, we proposed that Medicare would
not pay a facility fee when the originating site for a telehealth
service is the beneficiary's home.
Further, we proposed that the geographic limitations under section
1834(m)(4)(C)(i) of the Act would not apply to any originating site,
including a beneficiary's home, for telehealth services furnished by a
physician or practitioner billing through the TIN of an ACO participant
in an applicable ACO. This would mean that a physician or practitioner
billing through the TIN of an ACO participant in an applicable ACO
could furnish and be paid for telehealth services when the beneficiary
receives those services while located at an originating site in an
urban area that is within an MSA, assuming all other requirements are
met. We also proposed to require that, consistent with section
1899(l)(1)(B) of the Act, the originating site must comply with State
licensing requirements.
We proposed that the treatment of the beneficiary's home as an
originating site and the non-application of the originating site
geographic restrictions would be applicable only to payments for
services on the list of Medicare telehealth services. The approved list
of telehealth services is maintained on our website and is subject to
annual updates (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-General-Information/Telehealth/Telehealth-Codes.html). However, as provided in
section 1899(l)(3)(B) of the Act, in the case where the beneficiary's
home is the originating site, Medicare will not pay for telehealth
services that are inappropriate to be furnished in the home even if the
services are on the approved list of telehealth services. Therefore, we
proposed that ACO participants must not submit claims for services
specified as inpatient only when the service is furnished as a
telehealth service and the beneficiary's home is the originating site.
For example, CPT codes G0406, G0407, G0408, G0425, G0426, and G0427 are
used for reporting inpatient hospital visits and are included on the
2018 approved telehealth list. As described in Chapter 12, section
190.3.1, of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual,\21\ Medicare pays
for inpatient or emergency department telehealth services furnished to
beneficiaries located in a hospital or SNF; therefore, consistent with
the current FFS telehealth requirements, we believe it would be
inappropriate for an ACO participant to submit a claim for an inpatient
telehealth visit when the originating site is the beneficiary's home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41865), we are
concerned about potential beneficiary financial liability for
telehealth services provided to beneficiaries excluded from assignment
under the Shared Savings Program. A beneficiary prospectively assigned
to an applicable ACO at the beginning of a performance year can
subsequently be excluded from assignment if he or she meets the
exclusion criteria specified under Sec. 425.401(b). To address delays
in communicating beneficiary exclusions from the assignment list, the
Telehealth Expansion Benefit Enhancement under the Next Generation ACO
Model provides for a 90-day grace period that functionally acts as an
extension of beneficiary eligibility to receive services under the
Benefit Enhancement and permits some additional time for the ACO to
receive quarterly exclusion lists from CMS and communicate beneficiary
exclusions to its participants. We also provide for a 90-day grace
period with respect to the Shared Savings Program SNF 3-day rule waiver
under Sec. 425.612(a)(1), which allows for coverage of qualifying SNF
services furnished to a beneficiary who was prospectively assigned to
an ACO that has been approved for the waiver at the beginning of the
performance year, but was excluded in the most recent quarterly update
to the ACO's prospective assignment list.
Based upon the experience in the Next Generation ACO Model, we
believe it would be inadvisable not to provide some protection for
beneficiaries who are prospectively assigned to an applicable ACO at
the start of the year, but are subsequently excluded from assignment.
It is not operationally feasible for CMS to notify the ACO and for the
ACO, in turn, to notify its ACO participants and ACO providers/
suppliers immediately of the beneficiary's exclusion. The lag in
communication may then cause a physician or practitioner billing under
the TIN of an ACO participant to unknowingly furnish a telehealth
service to a beneficiary who no longer qualifies to receive telehealth
services under section 1899(l) of the Act. Therefore, we proposed to
use our waiver authority under section 1899(f) of the Act to waive the
originating site requirements in section 1834(m)(4)(C) of the Act as
necessary to provide for a 90-day grace period for payment of otherwise
covered telehealth services, to allow sufficient time for CMS to notify
an applicable ACO of any beneficiary exclusions, and for the ACO then
to inform its ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers of those
exclusions. We believe it is necessary, to protect beneficiaries from
potential financial liability related to use of telehealth services
furnished by physicians and other practitioners billing through the TIN
of an ACO participant in an applicable ACO, to establish this 90-day
grace period in the case of a prospectively assigned beneficiary who is
later excluded from assignment to an applicable ACO.
More specifically, we proposed to waive the originating site
requirements in section 1834(m)(4)(C) of the Act to allow for coverage
of telehealth services furnished by a physician or practitioner billing
through the TIN of an ACO participant in an applicable ACO to an
excluded beneficiary within 90 days following the date that CMS
delivers the relevant quarterly exclusion list under Sec. 425.401(b).
We proposed to amend Sec. 425.612 to add a new paragraph (f)
establishing the terms and conditions of this waiver. This waiver would
permit us to make payment for otherwise covered telehealth services
furnished during a 90 day grace period to beneficiaries who were
initially on an applicable ACO's list of prospectively assigned
beneficiaries for the performance year, but were subsequently excluded
during the performance year. Under the terms of this waiver, CMS would
make payments for telehealth services furnished to such a beneficiary
as if they were telehealth services authorized under section
[[Page 67976]]
1899(l) of the Act if the following conditions are met:
The beneficiary was prospectively assigned to an
applicable ACO at the beginning of the relevant performance year,
but was excluded in the most recent quarterly update to the
assignment list under Sec. 425.401(b);
The telehealth services are furnished to the
beneficiary by a physician or practitioner billing through the TIN
of an ACO participant in an applicable ACO within 90 days following
the date that CMS delivers the quarterly exclusion list to the
applicable ACO.
But for the beneficiary's exclusion from the applicable
ACO's assignment list, CMS would have made payment to the ACO
participant for such services under section 1899(l) of the Act.
In addition, as described in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR
41865) we are concerned that there could be scenarios where a
beneficiary could be charged for non-covered telehealth services that
were a result of an inappropriate attempt to furnish and be paid for
telehealth services under section 1899(l) of the Act by a physician or
practitioner billing through the TIN of an ACO participant in an
applicable ACO. Specifically, we are concerned that a beneficiary could
be charged for non-covered telehealth services if a physician or
practitioner billing through the TIN of an ACO participant in an
applicable ACO were to attempt to furnish a telehealth service that
would be otherwise covered under section 1899(l) of the Act to a FFS
beneficiary who is not prospectively assigned to the applicable ACO,
and payment for the telehealth service is denied because the
beneficiary is not eligible to receive telehealth services furnished
under section 1899(l) of the Act. We believe this situation could occur
as a result of a breakdown in one or more processes of the applicable
ACO and its ACO participants. For example, the ACO participant may not
verify that the beneficiary appears on the ACO's prospective assignment
list, as required under section 1899(l) of the Act, prior to furnishing
a telehealth service. In this scenario, Medicare would deny payment of
the telehealth service claim because the beneficiary did not meet the
requirement of being prospectively assigned to an applicable ACO. We
are concerned that, once the claim is rejected, the beneficiary may not
be protected from financial liability, and thus could be charged by the
ACO participant for non-covered telehealth services that were a result
of an inappropriate attempt to furnish telehealth services under
section 1899(l), potentially subjecting the beneficiary to significant
financial liability. In this circumstance, we proposed to assume that
the physician or other practitioner's intent was to rely upon section
1899(l) of the Act. We believe this is a reasonable assumption because,
as a physician or practitioner billing under the TIN of an ACO
participant in an applicable ACO, the healthcare provider should be
well aware of the rules regarding furnishing telehealth services and,
by submitting the claim, demonstrated an expectation that CMS would pay
for telehealth services that would otherwise have been rejected for
lack of meeting the originating site requirements in section
1834(m)(4)(C) of the Act. We believe that in this scenario, the
rejection of the claim could easily have been avoided if the ACO and
the ACO participant had procedures in place to confirm that the
requirements for furnishing such telehealth services were satisfied.
Because each of these entities is in a better position than the
beneficiary to know the requirements of the Shared Savings Program and
to ensure that they are met, we believe that the applicable ACO and/or
its ACO participants should be accountable for such denials and the ACO
participant should be prevented from charging the beneficiary for the
non-covered telehealth service. Therefore, we proposed that in the
event that CMS makes no payment for telehealth services furnished to a
FFS beneficiary and billed through the TIN of an ACO participant in an
applicable ACO and the only reason the claim was non-covered is because
the beneficiary was not prospectively assigned to the ACO or was not in
the 90 day grace period, all of the following beneficiary protections
would apply:
The ACO participant must not charge the beneficiary for
the expenses incurred for such services;
The ACO participant must return to the beneficiary any
monies collected for such services; and
The ACO may be subject to compliance actions, including
being required to submit a corrective action plan (CAP) under Sec.
425.216(b) for CMS approval. If the ACO is required to submit a CAP
and, after being given an opportunity to act upon the CAP, the ACO
fails to implement the CAP or demonstrate improved performance upon
completion of the CAP, we may terminate the participation agreement
as specified under Sec. 425.216(b)(2). These proposed beneficiary
protections are reflected in the proposed new regulation at Sec.
425.613, which implements the requirements of section 1899(l) of the
Act and establishes the policies governing the use of telehealth
services by applicable ACOs and their ACO participants and ACO
providers/suppliers.
Lastly, in the August 2018 proposed rule, we included a proposed
change to the public reporting requirements under Sec. 425.308 to
include an ACO's use of payment rule waivers under Sec. 425.612, if
applicable, or telehealth services under Sec. 425.613, if applicable,
or both.
We welcomed comments on these proposals for implementing the
requirements of section 1899(l) of the Act, as added by the Bipartisan
Budget Act, and related issues. Our proposed policies concerning the
applicability of the SNF 3-day rule waiver and expanded coverage for
telehealth services in accordance with section 1899(l) of the Act by
track are summarized in Table 10.
[[Page 67977]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.014
Comment: A number of commenters expressed their support for the
proposals to make payments to physicians or practitioners for
furnishing otherwise covered telehealth services, including when the
originating site is the beneficiary's home. Several commenters wrote
that the telehealth proposals would specifically help those who are
home bound, or lack transportation, to have access to primary care
services that would otherwise be unavailable. A few commenters
supported the proposal to allow the beneficiary's home to be the
originating site, and encouraged CMS to remove all originating site
requirements.
Response: We appreciate commenters' support for the proposed
policies for implementing the telehealth requirements of section
1899(l) of the Act, as added by the Bipartisan Budget Act.
Comment: A few commenters generally supported our telehealth
proposals, but expressed uncertainty about how this new provision would
impact FQHCs and encouraged CMS to clarify the language in the proposed
rule to clearly allow FQHCs to provide telehealth services through
their participation in an ACO.
Response: Although RHCs and FQHCs are authorized to serve as an
originating site for telehealth services, RHCs and FQHCs are not
authorized to serve as a distant site for telehealth consultations. We
also wish to clarify that RHCs and FQHCs may not share space, staff,
supplies, equipment, and/or other resources with an onsite Medicare
Part B FFS practice operated by the same RHC or FQHC physician(s) and/
or non-physician(s) practitioners. Additionally, RHC and FQHC
practitioners may not furnish or separately bill for RHC or FQHC-
covered professional services as a Part B provider in the RHC or FQHC.
Additional details about these prohibitions are available in Chapter 13
of the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual (https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/bp102c13.pdf). Therefore,
practitioners furnishing services in a RHC or FQHC facility cannot
furnish telehealth services, though a beneficiary may use an RHC/FQHC
facility as an originating site.
Comment: One commenter requested a real time benefit eligibility
system for physician offices.
Response: The Shared Savings Program regulations do not prohibit
ACOs from creating a beneficiary eligibility system to aid their ACO
providers and suppliers in identifying prospectively assigned
beneficiaries. Beneficiary FFS coverage should be verified at the time
they receive services to determine eligibility.
Comment: One ACO commenter stated rural populations do not have
access to the proper technology to effectively implement telehealth
services, which would limit the practical usage of the proposal for
this ACO.
Response: The Bipartisan Budget Act and this final rule do not
impose any new limitations on delivery of telehealth services, instead
the new provisions allow for a greater number of beneficiaries to be
eligible to receive covered telehealth services. Eligible beneficiaries
without the proper technology to receive telehealth services from their
home remain eligible to receive such services from other originating
sites such as a practitioner's office or an RHC or FQHC.
Comment: Commenters generally supported the proposal to apply the
proposed telehealth policies to ACOs under a two-sided model. However,
they encouraged CMS to expand the coverage to include ACOs under the
preliminary prospective with retrospective reconciliation assignment
methodology in order to create consistency with the SNF waiver, and
make the proposals more streamlined for CMS to manage. A few commenters
suggested that CMS allow ACOs to apply the telehealth proposals to
voluntary aligned beneficiaries who are assigned to an ACO under the
preliminary prospective with retrospective reconciliation assignment
methodology. One commenter suggested that telehealth coverage be
extended to ACOs under one-sided tracks, stating that ACOs in shared
savings only
[[Page 67978]]
models have generated more savings than ACOs in two-sided models.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' support; however, CMS does
not believe it is necessary to implement the Shared Savings Program to
use its waiver authority to broaden the expansion of coverage for
telehealth services beyond what Congress has specified for the Shared
Savings Program. Section 1899(l)(2)(A) of the Act specifies in the
definition of applicable ACO the requirements that an ACO must operate
under a two-sided model under which beneficiaries are assigned using a
prospective assignment methodology. Therefore, in view of Congress'
decision to limit the expansion of coverage of telehealth services
under section 1899(l) of the Act to physicians and practitioners in
applicable ACOs, we do not believe it would be necessary for purposes
of carrying out the Shared Savings Program to use our authority under
section 1899(f) of the Act to issue a waiver allowing ACO providers/
suppliers participating in ACOs operating under a one-sided model or to
which beneficiaries are preliminary prospectively assigned to receive
payment for expanded telehealth services in the same manner as for
telehealth services furnished under 1899(l).
Comment: Several commenters suggested the implementation of a
waiver under section 1899(f) to allow the proposed telehealth policies
to begin on July 1, 2019.
Response: We proposed that the policies governing telehealth
services furnished in accordance with section 1899(l) of the Act would
be effective for telehealth services furnished in performance years
beginning in 2020 and subsequent years in accordance with the
Bipartisan Budget Act. Therefore, consistent with the effective date
specified by Congress, we decline to use our authority under section
1899(f) of the Act to issue a waiver to allow physicians and
practitioners participating in applicable ACOs to furnish telehealth
services pursuant to section 1899(l) of the Act in the 6 months between
July 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019.
Comment: One commenter requested that CMS clarify how we would
determine a ``telehealth service must not be inappropriate to furnish
in the home setting'' (Sec. 425.613(a)(1)(iv)) and define the
``inappropriate use of telehealth services'' (Sec. 425.613(d)(2)).
Additionally, the commenter asked whether there would be different
coding requirements for telehealth services delivered where the
beneficiary's home is the originating site.
Response: As we previously detailed, we have determined CPT codes
G0406, G0407, G0408, G0425, G0426, and G0427 are inappropriate to
furnish in the home setting. We identified these codes because they are
specific to an inpatient setting and we believe it is inappropriate to
deliver any service identified as an inpatient service in the home of a
beneficiary. ACO providers/suppliers furnishing telehealth services
must comply with all applicable Shared Savings Program and FFS
regulations concerning furnishing telehealth services. Telehealth
originating site claims are submitted independently from the physician
services claims; beneficiaries and practitioners must refrain from
submitting claims for an originating site facility fee when the
services is furnished in the beneficiary's home.
Comment: One commenter agreed with the 90-day grace period for
beneficiaries, and that ACO TINs should not charge beneficiaries if
they inappropriately furnish a telehealth service to a beneficiary.
Another commenter suggested waiving cost-sharing obligations for
beneficiaries receiving telehealth services wherever possible.
Response: We thank commenters for their support. We proposed
telehealth services furnished in accordance with section 1899(l) of the
Act in accordance with the Bipartisan Budget Act. The Bipartisan Budget
Act does not include provisions allowing providers and suppliers to
waive cost-sharing obligations; therefore, we decline to create
additional provisions addressing telehealth service cost-sharing
requirements.
Comment: One commenter suggested that telepsychiatry plays an
important role in the health care system through improving patient
outcomes and reducing costs for patients with undiagnosed mental
illness and substance use disorders. Another commenter suggested CMS
allow beneficiaries to receive telehealth services from their home or
residence from an emergency physician. The commenter cited the shortage
of hospitals and emergency departments in rural communities as the
reason they believed this would be an appropriate service.
Response: The list of telehealth services is updated through the
annual physician fee schedule. The public has the opportunity to submit
requests to add or delete services on an ongoing basis. We invite the
commenter to make suggestions for additions to the Medicare list of
telehealth services through this process.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that requiring ACO
providers/suppliers to preview quarterly beneficiary assignment lists
prior to delivering telehealth services, and not receiving payment if
the beneficiary was not eligible to receive telehealth services, would
be an administrative burden for ACOs.
Response: Section 1899(l) of the Act requires that physicians and
practitioners must be participating in an ACO to which beneficiaries
are assigned using a prospective assignment method to be eligible to
furnish covered telehealth services under that subsection, which
services must be furnished to an assigned beneficiary. Shared Savings
Program ACOs and their ACO providers/suppliers are not required to
provide telehealth services, but if they chose to, the beneficiaries to
whom they furnish such services must appear on the ACO's prospective
assignment list.
Comment: One commenter suggested that ACOs should publicly report
their delivery of telehealth services via their participation in the
Shared Savings Program; the commenter suggested that this would prevent
ACO participants from misusing benefit enhancements provided by CMS.
Response: We agree that transparency is important for reducing
misuse of telehealth service delivery. In the August 2018 proposed
rule, we proposed modifications to Sec. 425.308 to include public
reporting of an ACO's use of payment rule waivers under Sec. 425.612,
if applicable, or telehealth services under Sec. 425.613, if
applicable, or both.
Comment: One commenter suggested that any application to bill for
telehealth services furnished pursuant to Sec. 1899(l) needs to be
concise for risk-bearing ACOs.
Response: Our proposed policies under Sec. 425.613 did not include
any application process.
Final Action: After considering the comments received in response
to the proposed policies for implementing the telehealth requirements
of section 1899(l) of the Act, as added by the Bipartisan Budget Act,
we are finalizing the proposed policies for ACOs participating under
performance-based risk that has elected the prospective assignment
methodology under Sec. 425.400(a)(3). Accordingly, we are also
finalizing the addition of Sec. 425.613. Lastly, we are finalizing the
proposed modifications to Sec. 425.308(b)(6) to include a requirement
for public reporting of an ACO's use of payment
[[Page 67979]]
rule waivers under Sec. 425.612, if applicable, or telehealth services
under Sec. 425.613, if applicable, or both.
C. Providing Tools To Strengthen Beneficiary Engagement
1. Background on Beneficiary Engagement
Section 1899(b)(2)(G) of the Act requires an ACO to ``define
processes to promote . . . patient engagement.'' Strengthening
beneficiary engagement is one of CMS' goals to help transform our
health care system into one that delivers better care, smarter spending
and healthier people, and that puts the beneficiary at the center of
care. We stated in the November 2011 final rule that the term ``patient
engagement'' means the active participation of patients and their
families in the process of making medical decisions (76 FR 67828). The
regulation at Sec. 425.112 details the patient-centeredness criteria
for the Shared Savings Program, and requires that ACOs implement
processes to promote patient engagement (Sec. 425.112(b)(2)).
In addition, section 50341 of the Bipartisan Budget Act, which
amends section 1899 of the Act, allows certain ACOs to each establish a
beneficiary incentive program for assigned beneficiaries who receive
qualifying primary-care services in order to encourage Medicare FFS
beneficiaries to obtain medically necessary primary care services. In
order to implement the amendments to section 1899 of the Act, and
consistent with our goal to strengthen beneficiary engagement, we
proposed policies in the August 2018 proposed rule to allow any ACO in
Track 2, levels C, D, or E of the BASIC track, or the ENHANCED track to
establish a CMS-approved beneficiary incentive program to provide
incentive payments to eligible beneficiaries who receive qualifying
services.
Furthermore, we proposed to revise our policies related to
beneficiary notifications. Specifically, we proposed to require
additional content for beneficiary notifications and that beneficiaries
receive such notices at the first primary care visit of each
performance year. Finally, we sought comment on whether we should
create an alternative beneficiary assignment methodology, in order to
promote beneficiary free choice, under which a beneficiary would be
assigned to an ACO if the beneficiary has ``opted-in'' to assignment to
the ACO.
2. Beneficiary Incentives
a. Overview
As we indicated in the August 2018 proposed rule, we believe that
patient engagement is an important part of motivating and encouraging
more active participation by beneficiaries in their health care. We
continue to believe that ACOs that engage beneficiaries in the
management of their health care may experience greater success in the
Shared Savings Program. In the November 2011 final rule (see 76 FR
67958), we noted that some commenters had suggested that beneficiary
engagement and coordination of care could be enhanced by providing
additional incentives to beneficiaries that would potentially motivate
and encourage beneficiaries to become actively involved in their care.
One commenter gave the example of supplying scales to beneficiaries
with congestive heart failure to help them better manage this chronic
disease. Other commenters were concerned that certain beneficiary
incentives such as gifts, cash, or other remuneration could be
inappropriate incentives for receiving services or remaining assigned
to an ACO or with a particular ACO participant or ACO provider/
supplier.
In the November 2011 final rule, we finalized a provision at Sec.
425.304(a)(1) that prohibits ACOs, ACO participants, ACO providers/
suppliers, and other individuals or entities performing functions or
services related to ACO activities from providing gifts or other
remuneration to beneficiaries as incentives for (i) receiving items and
services from or remaining in an ACO or with ACO providers/suppliers in
a particular ACO, or (ii) receiving items or services from ACO
participants or ACO providers/suppliers. However, in response to
comments, we finalized a provision at Sec. 425.304(a)(2) to provide
that, subject to compliance with all other applicable laws and
regulations, an ACO, ACO participants, and ACO providers/suppliers, and
other individuals or entities performing functions or services related
to ACO activities may provide in-kind items or services to
beneficiaries if there is a reasonable connection between the items or
services and the medical care of the beneficiary, and the items or
services are preventive care items or services, or advance a clinical
goal of the beneficiary, including adherence to a treatment regime;
adherence to a drug regime; adherence to a follow-up care plan; or
management of a chronic disease or condition. For example, an ACO
provider may give a blood pressure monitor to a beneficiary with
hypertension in order to encourage regular blood pressure monitoring
and thus educate and engage the beneficiary to be more proactive in his
or her disease management. In this instance, such a gift would not be
considered an improper incentive to encourage the beneficiary to remain
with an ACO, ACO participant, or ACO provider/supplier.
We noted in the August 2018 proposed rule that nothing precludes
ACOs, ACO participants, or ACO providers/suppliers from offering a
beneficiary an incentive to promote his or her clinical care if the
incentive does not violate the Federal anti-kickback statute (section
1128B(b) of the Act), the civil monetary penalties law provision
relating to beneficiary inducements (section 1128A(a)(5) of the Act,
known as the Beneficiary Inducements CMP), or other applicable law. For
additional information on beneficiary incentives that may be
permissible under the Federal anti-kickback statute and the Beneficiary
Inducements CMP, see the final rule published by the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) on December 7, 2016 titled ``Medicare and State
Health Care Programs: Fraud and Abuse; Revisions to the Safe Harbors
Under the Anti-Kickback Statute and Civil Monetary Penalty Rules
Regarding Beneficiary Inducements'' (81 FR 88368), as well as other
resources that can be found on the OIG website at oig.hhs.gov.
In addition, as we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule, we
believe that the existing regulation at Sec. 425.304(a)(2) already
provides ACOs with a considerable amount of flexibility to offer
beneficiary incentives to encourage patient engagement, promote care
coordination, and achieve the objectives of the Shared Savings Program.
Further, ACOs, ACO participants, and ACO providers/suppliers need not
furnish beneficiary incentives under the existing regulation at Sec.
425.304(a)(2) to every beneficiary; they have the flexibility to offer
incentives on a targeted basis to beneficiaries who, for example, are
most likely to achieve the clinical goal that the incentive is intended
to advance. Although the appropriateness of any in-kind beneficiary
incentives must be determined on a case-by-case basis, we believe a
wide variety of incentives could be acceptable under the existing
regulation under Sec. 425.304(a)(2), including, for example, the
following:
Vouchers for over-the-counter medications recommended
by a health care provider.
Prepaid, non-transferable vouchers that are redeemable
for transportation services
[[Page 67980]]
solely to and from an appointment with a health care provider.
Items and services to support management of a chronic
disease or condition, such as home air-filtering systems or bedroom
air-conditioning for asthmatic patients, and home improvements such
as railing installation or other home modifications to prevent re-
injury.
Wellness program memberships, seminars, and classes.
Electronic systems that alert family caregivers when a
family member with dementia wanders away from home.
Vouchers for those with chronic diseases to access
chronic disease self-management, pain management and falls
prevention programs.
Vouchers for those with malnutrition to access meals
programs.
Phone applications, calendars or other methods for
reminding patients to take their medications and promote patient
adherence to treatment regimes.
As the previously stated examples indicate, we consider vouchers,
that is, certificates that can be exchanged for particular goods or
services (for example, a certificate for one free gym class at a local
gym), to be ``in-kind items or services'' under existing Sec.
425.304(a)(2) (redesignated as Sec. 425.304(b) in this final rule).
Accordingly, an ACO may offer vouchers as beneficiary incentives under
Sec. 425.304(a)(2) so long as the vouchers meet all the other
requirements of Sec. 425.304(a)(2).
In addition, we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule that,
for purposes of the Shared Savings Program, we consider gift cards that
are in the nature of a voucher, that is, gift cards that can be used
only for particular goods or services, to be ``in-kind items or
services'' that can be offered under existing Sec. 425.304(a)(2),
provided that the requirements are satisfied. A gift card that is not
in the nature of a voucher, however, such as a gift card to a general
store, would not meet the requirements for ``in-kind item or service''
under existing Sec. 425.304(a)(2). Furthermore, we consider a gift
card that can be used like cash, for example, a VISA or Amazon ``gift
card,'' to be a ``cash equivalent'' that can be offered only as an
incentive payment under an approved beneficiary incentive program,
provided that all of the criteria set forth in Sec. 425.304(c), as
finalized, are satisfied. We emphasized that, as previously stated, the
determination and appropriateness of any in-kind beneficiary incentive
must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Although we believe that ACOs, ACO participants, ACO providers/
suppliers and other individuals or entities performing functions or
services related to ACO activities are already permitted to furnish a
broad range of beneficiary incentives under existing Sec.
425.304(a)(2) (including the previously stated examples), we noted that
stakeholders have advocated that ACOs be permitted to offer a more
flexible, and extensive range of beneficiary incentives that are not
currently allowable under Sec. 425.304. In particular, stakeholders
have sought to offer monetary incentives that beneficiaries could use
to purchase retail items, which would not qualify as in-kind items or
services under Sec. 425.304.
b. Provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act for ACO Beneficiary
Incentive Programs
As previously noted, and as explained in the August 2018 proposed
rule, in order to encourage Medicare FFS beneficiaries to obtain
medically necessary primary care services, the recent amendments to
section 1899 of the Act permit certain ACOs to establish beneficiary
incentive programs to provide incentive payments to assigned
beneficiaries who receive qualifying primary care services. We believe
that such amendments will empower individuals and caregivers in care
delivery. Specifically, the Bipartisan Budget Act added section
1899(m)(1)(A) of the Act, which allows ACOs to apply to operate an ACO
beneficiary incentive program. The Bipartisan Budget Act also added a
new subsection (m)(2) to section 1899 of the Act, which provides
clarification regarding the general features, implementation, duration,
and scope of approved ACO beneficiary incentive programs. In addition,
the Bipartisan Budget Act added section 1899(b)(2)(I) of the Act, which
requires ACOs that seek to operate a beneficiary incentive program to
apply to operate the program at such time, in such manner, and with
such information as the Secretary may require.
Section 1899(m)(1)(A) of the Act, as added by the Bipartisan Budget
Act, allows ACOs participating in certain payment models described in
section 1899(m)(2)(B) of the Act to apply to establish an ACO
beneficiary incentive program to provide incentive payments to Medicare
FFS beneficiaries who are furnished qualifying services. Section
1899(m)(1)(A) of the Act also specifies that the Secretary shall permit
an ACO to establish such a program at the Secretary's discretion and
subject to such requirements, including program integrity requirements,
as the Secretary determines necessary.
Section 1899(m)(1)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to
implement the ACO beneficiary incentive program provisions under
section 1899(m) of the Act on a date determined appropriate by the
Secretary, but no earlier than January 1, 2019 and no later than
January 1, 2020. In addition, section 1899(m)(2)(A) of the Act, as
added by the Bipartisan Budget Act, specifies that an ACO beneficiary
incentive program shall be conducted for a period of time (of not less
than 1 year) as the Secretary may approve, subject to the termination
of the ACO beneficiary incentive program by the Secretary.
Section 1899(m)(2)(H) of the Act provides that the Secretary may
terminate an ACO beneficiary incentive program at any time for reasons
determined appropriate by the Secretary. In addition, the Bipartisan
Budget Act amended section 1899(g)(6) of the Act to provide that there
shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869 or
1878 of the Act, or otherwise, of the termination of an ACO beneficiary
incentive program.
Section 1899(m)(2)(B) of the Act requires that an ACO beneficiary
incentive program provide incentive payments to all of the following
Medicare FFS beneficiaries who are furnished qualifying services by the
ACO: (1) Medicare FFS beneficiaries who are preliminarily prospectively
or prospectively assigned (or otherwise assigned, as determined by the
Secretary) to an ACO in a Track 2 or Track 3 payment model described in
Sec. 425.600(a) (or in any successor regulation) and (2) Medicare FFS
beneficiaries who are assigned to an ACO, as determined by the
Secretary, in any future payment models involving two-sided risk.
Section 1899(m)(2)(C) of the Act, as added by the Bipartisan Budget
Act, defines a qualifying service, for which incentive payments may be
made to beneficiaries, as a primary care service, as defined in Sec.
425.20 (or in any successor regulation), with respect to which
coinsurance applies under Medicare part B. Section 1899(m)(2)(C) of the
Act also provides that a qualifying service is a service furnished
through an ACO by: (1) An ACO professional described in section
1899(h)(1)(A) of the Act who has a primary care specialty designation
included in the definition of primary care physician under Sec. 425.20
(or any successor regulation) (2) an ACO professional described in
section 1899(h)(1)(B) of the Act; or (3) a FQHC or RHC (as such terms
are defined in section 1861(aa) of the Act).
As added by the Bipartisan Budget Act, section 1899(m)(2)(D) of the
Act provides that an incentive payment made by an ACO under an ACO
beneficiary incentive program shall be in an amount up to $20, with the
[[Page 67981]]
maximum amount updated annually by the percentage increase in the
consumer price index for all urban consumers (United States city
average) for the 12-month period ending with June of the previous year.
Section 1899(m)(2)(D) of the Act also requires that an incentive
payment be in the same amount for each Medicare FFS beneficiary
regardless of the enrollment of the beneficiary in a Medicare
supplemental policy (described in section 1882(g)(1) of the Act), in a
State Medicaid plan under Title XIX or a waiver of such a plan, or in
any other health insurance policy or health benefit plan. Finally,
section 1899(m)(2)(D) of the Act requires that an incentive payment be
made for each qualifying service furnished to a beneficiary during a
period specified by the Secretary and that an incentive payment be made
no later than 30 days after a qualifying service is furnished to the
beneficiary.
Section 1899(m)(2)(E) of the Act, as added by the Bipartisan Budget
Act, provides that no separate payment shall be made to an ACO for the
costs, including the costs of incentive payments, of carrying out an
ACO beneficiary incentive program. The section further provides that
this requirement shall not be construed as prohibiting an ACO from
using shared savings received under the Shared Savings Program to carry
out an ACO beneficiary incentive program. In addition, section
1899(m)(2)(F) of the Act provides that incentive payments made by an
ACO under an ACO beneficiary incentive program shall be disregarded for
purposes of calculating benchmarks, estimated average per capita
Medicare expenditures, and shared savings for purposes of the Shared
Savings Program.
As added by the Bipartisan Budget Act, section 1899(m)(2)(G) of the
Act provides that an ACO conducting an ACO beneficiary incentive
program shall, at such times and in such format as the Secretary may
require, report to the Secretary such information and retain such
documentation as the Secretary may require, including the amount and
frequency of incentive payments made and the number of Medicare FFS
beneficiaries receiving such payments. Finally, section 1899(m)(3) of
the Act excludes payments under an ACO beneficiary incentive program
from being considered income or resources or otherwise taken into
account for purposes of: (1) Determining eligibility for benefits or
assistance under any Federal program or State or local program financed
with Federal funds; or (2) any Federal or State laws relating to
taxation.
c. Beneficiary Incentive Programs
In order to implement the changes set forth in section 1899(b)(2)
and (m) of the Act, we proposed to add regulation text at Sec.
425.304(c) that would allow ACOs participating under certain two-sided
models to establish beneficiary incentive programs to provide incentive
payments to assigned beneficiaries who receive qualifying services. In
developing such proposed policy, we considered the statutory provisions
set forth in section 1899(b)(2) and (m) of the Act, as amended, as well
as the following: The application process for establishing a
beneficiary incentive program; who can furnish an incentive payment;
the amount, timing, and frequency of an incentive payment; how an
incentive payment may be financed, and necessary program integrity
requirements. We addressed each of these considerations in the August
2018 proposed rule.
As previously explained, section 1899(m)(1)(A) of the Act
authorizes ``an ACO participating under this section under a payment
model described in clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (2)(B)'' to
establish an ACO beneficiary incentive program. In turn, section
1899(m)(2)(B)(i) of the Act describes ACOs participating in ``Track 2
and Track 3 payment models as described in section 425.600(a) . . . (or
in any successor regulation).'' Section 1899(m)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act
describes ACOs participating in ``any future payment models involving
two-sided risk.'' As discussed in section II.A.2. of the August 2018
proposed rule, we proposed to (1) discontinue Track 2 as a
participation option and limit its availability to agreement periods
beginning before July 1, 2019; (2) rename Track 3 the ``ENHANCED
track''; and (3) require ACOs with agreement periods beginning July 1,
2019 and in subsequent years to enter either the ENHANCED track (which
entails two-sided risk) or the new BASIC track (in which Levels A and B
have one-sided models and Levels C, D, and E have two-sided risk). As
noted in proposed Sec. 425.600(a)(3), for purposes of the Shared
Savings Program, all references to the ENHANCED track would be deemed
to include Track 3; the terms are synonymous. As discussed in section
II.A.2. and II.A.3. of this final rule, we are finalizing these
policies as proposed. Accordingly, Track 2 and ENHANCED track ACOs are
described under section 1899(m)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, and ACOs in Levels
C, D, or E of the BASIC track are described under section
1899(m)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. As a result, Track 2 ACOs, ENHANCED track
ACOs, and ACOs in Levels, C, D, or E of the BASIC track are authorized
to establish beneficiary incentive programs under section 1899(m)(1)(A)
of the Act.
Section 1899(m)(1)(B) of the Act states that the ``Secretary shall
implement this subsection on a date determined appropriate by the
Secretary. Such date shall be no earlier than January 1, 2019, and no
later than January 1, 2020.'' We proposed to allow ACOs to establish a
beneficiary incentive program beginning no earlier than July 1, 2019.
As discussed later in this section, ACOs that are approved to operate a
beneficiary incentive program shall conduct the program for at least 1
year, as required by section 1899(m)(2)(A) of the Act, unless CMS
terminates the ACO's beneficiary incentive program. As we explained in
the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41870), this means, for example,
that an ACO currently participating in the Shared Savings Program under
Track 2 or Track 3 whose agreement period expires on December 31, 2019
would be ineligible to operate a beneficiary incentive program starting
on July 1, 2019 because the ACO would have only 6 months of its
agreement remaining as of July 1, 2019. Under our proposed policy, the
ACO would, however, be permitted to start a beneficiary incentive
program on January 1, 2020 (assuming it renews its agreement to
participate in the Shared Savings Program).
We considered the operational impact of having both a midyear
beneficiary incentive program cycle (for ACOs that seek to establish a
beneficiary incentive program beginning on July 1, 2019) and a calendar
year beneficiary incentive program cycle (for ACOs that seek to
establish a beneficiary incentive program beginning on January 1, 2020,
or a later January 1 start date). We stated our belief that it could be
confusing for ACOs, and difficult for CMS to monitor approved
beneficiary incentive programs, if some ACOs begin their beneficiary
incentive programs in July 2019 and other ACOs begin their beneficiary
incentive programs in January 2020. We explained in the August 2018
proposed rule that, under this approach, annual certifications
regarding intent to continue a beneficiary incentive program (as
further discussed herein) would be provided by ACOs at different times
of the year, depending on when each ACO established its beneficiary
incentive program. To address this, we believe it is necessary to
require ACOs that establish a beneficiary incentive
[[Page 67982]]
program on July 1, 2019 to commit to an initial beneficiary incentive
program term of 18 months (with certifications required near the
conclusion of the 18-month period and for each consecutive 12-month
period thereafter). However, we proposed that any ACO that establishes
a beneficiary incentive program beginning on January 1 of a performance
year would be required to commit to an initial beneficiary incentive
program term of 12 months. This would allow the term cycles of all ACO
beneficiary incentive programs to later ``sync'' so that they all
operate on a calendar year beginning on January 1, 2021. As an
alternative, we considered permitting all ACOs to establish a
beneficiary incentive program beginning January 1, 2020. However, we
expressed our belief that some ACOs may prefer to establish a
beneficiary incentive program on July 1, 2019, rather than delay until
January 1, 2020.
The statute does not prescribe procedures that ACOs must adhere to
in applying to establish a beneficiary incentive program. In addition,
beyond the requirement that ACOs participate in Track 2, Track 3
(which, as we previously discussed, will be renamed the ``ENHANCED
track'') or a ``future payment model involving two-sided risk''
(sections 1899(m)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Act), the new provisions do
not describe what factors we should consider in evaluating whether an
ACO should be permitted to establish a beneficiary incentive program.
Instead, section 1899(m)(1)(A) of the Act states that the ``Secretary
shall permit such an ACO to establish such a program at the Secretary's
discretion and subject to such requirements . . . as the Secretary
determines necessary.'' We proposed that the application for the
beneficiary incentive program be in a form and manner specified by CMS,
which may be separate from the application to participate in the Shared
Savings Program. We explained that in our proposal that we would
provide additional information regarding the application on our
website.
We proposed to permit eligible ACOs to apply to establish a
beneficiary incentive program during the July 1, 2019 application cycle
or during a future annual application cycle for the Shared Savings
Program. In addition, we proposed to permit an eligible ACO that is
mid-agreement to apply to establish a beneficiary incentive program
during the application cycle prior to the performance year in which the
ACO chooses to begin implementing its beneficiary incentive program. We
explained that this proposed policy would apply to ACOs that enter a
two-sided model at the start of an agreement period but that do not
apply to establish a beneficiary incentive program at the time of their
initial or renewal application to the Shared Savings Program. This
means, for example, that an ACO that enters the Shared Savings Program
under a two-sided model but that does not seek to offer a beneficiary
incentive program until its second performance year could apply to
offer a beneficiary incentive program during the application cycle in
advance of its second performance year. This would also apply to ACOs
that enter the BASIC track's glide path under a one-sided model and
that apply to establish a beneficiary incentive program beginning with
a performance year under a two-sided model (see discussion in sections
II.A.3.b. and II.A.4.b. of this final rule).
We proposed that an ACO be required to operate its beneficiary
incentive program effective at the beginning of the performance year
following CMS' approval of the ACO's application to establish the
beneficiary incentive program. The ACO would then be required to
operate the approved beneficiary incentive program for the entirety of
such 12-month performance year (for ACOs that establish a beneficiary
incentive program on January 1, 2020, or a later January 1 start date)
or for an initial 18-month period (for ACOs that establish a
beneficiary incentive program on July 1, 2019).
We proposed that an ACO with an approved beneficiary incentive
program application be permitted to operate its beneficiary incentive
program for any consecutive performance year if it complies with
certain certification requirements. Specifically, we proposed that an
ACO that seeks to continue to offer its beneficiary incentive program
beyond the initial 12-month or 18-month term (as previously discussed)
be required to certify, in the form and manner and by a deadline
specified by CMS, its intent to continue to operate its beneficiary
incentive program for the entirety of the next performance year, and
that its beneficiary incentive program continues to meet all applicable
requirements. We explained in the August 2018 proposed rule that CMS
may terminate a beneficiary incentive program, in accordance with Sec.
425.304(c)(7), as proposed, if an ACO fails to provide such
certification. We believe this certification requirement is necessary
for CMS to monitor beneficiary incentive programs. We explained that we
would provide further information regarding the annual certification
process through subregulatory guidance.
In addition to the application and certification requirements
previously described, we considered whether an ACO that offers a
beneficiary incentive program should be required to notify CMS of any
modification to its beneficiary incentive program prior to implementing
such modification. We solicited comments on this issue.
With respect to who may receive an incentive payment, we stated in
the August 2018 proposed rule that a FFS beneficiary would be eligible
to receive an incentive payment if the beneficiary is assigned to an
ACO through either preliminary prospective assignment with
retrospective reconciliation, as described in Sec. 425.400(a)(2), or
prospective assignment, as described in Sec. 425.400(a)(3). We noted
that Track 2 is under preliminary prospective assignment with
retrospective reconciliation under Sec. 425.400(a)(2). In addition, as
discussed in section II.A.4. of the proposed rule, we proposed to
permit BASIC track and ENHANCED track ACOs to enter an agreement period
under preliminary prospective assignment, as described in Sec.
425.400(a)(2), or under prospective assignment, as described in Sec.
425.400(a)(3). Further, we explained that a beneficiary may choose to
voluntarily align with an ACO, and, if eligible for assignment, the
beneficiary would be prospectively assigned to the ACO (regardless of
track) for the performance year under Sec. 425.402(e)(1). Therefore,
consistent with our proposed policy regarding which ACOs may establish
a beneficiary incentive program, we explained that any beneficiary
assigned to an ACO that is participating under Track 2; Levels C, D, or
E of the BASIC track; or the ENHANCED track would be eligible to
receive an incentive payment under that ACO's CMS-approved beneficiary
incentive program.
Section 1899(m)(2)(C) of the Act sets forth the definition of a
qualifying service for purposes of the beneficiary incentive program.
We mirrored the language in the proposed regulation text noting that
``a qualifying service is a primary care service,'' as defined in Sec.
425.20, ``with respect to which coinsurance applies under part B,''
furnished through an ACO by ``an ACO professional who has a primary
care specialty designation included in the definition of primary care
physician'' under Sec. 425.20; an ACO professional who is a physician
assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist; or a FQHC
or RHC. Accordingly, we explained that, under our proposal, any service
furnished by an ACO professional who is a physician but does
[[Page 67983]]
not have a specialty designation included in the definition of primary
care physician would not be considered a qualifying service for which
an incentive payment may be furnished.
With respect to the amount of any incentive payment, we stated that
section 1899(m)(2)(D)(i) of the Act provides that an incentive payment
made by an ACO in accordance with a beneficiary incentive program shall
be ``in an amount up to $20.'' Accordingly, we proposed to incorporate
a $20 incentive payment limit into the regulation. We also proposed to
adopt the provision at section 1899(m)(2)(D)(i) of the Act, which
provides that the $20 maximum amount must be ``updated annually by the
percentage increase in the consumer price index for all urban consumers
(United States city average) for the 12-month period ending with June
of the previous year.'' To avoid minor changes in the updated maximum
amount, however, we expressed our belief that it would be necessary to
round the updated maximum incentive payment amount to the nearest whole
dollar. We explained that we would post the updated maximum payment
amount on the Shared Savings Program website and/or in a guidance
document regarding beneficiary incentive programs.
We also proposed to adopt the requirement that the incentive
payment be ``in the same amount for each Medicare fee-for-service
beneficiary'' without regard to enrollment of such a beneficiary in a
Medicare supplemental policy, in a State Medicaid plan, or a waiver of
such a plan, or in any other health insurance policy or health plan.
(Section 1899(m)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act.) Accordingly, under our
proposal, all incentive payments distributed by an ACO under its
beneficiary incentive program must be of equal monetary value. In other
words, an ACO would not be permitted to offer higher-valued incentive
payments for particular qualifying services or to particular
beneficiaries. However, we explained that an ACO would be able to
provide different types of incentive payments (for example, a gift card
to some beneficiaries and a check to others) depending on a
beneficiary's preference, so long as all incentive payments offered by
the ACO under its beneficiary incentive program were of equal monetary
value.
Furthermore, as required by section 1899(m)(2)(D)(iii) of the Act,
we proposed that an ACO furnish an incentive payment to an eligible
beneficiary each time the beneficiary receives a qualifying service. In
addition, in accordance with section 1899(m)(2)(D)(iv) of the Act, we
proposed to require that each incentive payment be ``made no later than
30 days after a qualifying service is furnished to such a
beneficiary.''
We considered the individuals and entities that should be permitted
to offer incentive payments to beneficiaries under a beneficiary
incentive program. We noted in the August 2018 proposed rule that
section 1899(m)(2)(D) of the Act, which addresses incentive payments,
contemplates that incentive payments be furnished directly by an ACO to
a beneficiary. In addition, we expressed our belief that this
requirement would be necessary because the ACO is in the best position
to ensure that any incentive payments offered are distributed only to
eligible beneficiaries and that other program requirements are met. We
therefore proposed to require that the ACO legal entity, and not ACO
participants or ACO providers/suppliers, furnish the incentive payments
directly to beneficiaries. We sought comment, however, on other
potential methods for distributing an incentive payment to a
beneficiary.
As previously explained, section 1899(m)(1)(A) of the Act allows
the Secretary to establish ``program integrity requirements, as the
Secretary deems necessary.'' Given the significant fraud and abuse
concerns associated with offering cash incentives, we expressed our
belief that it would be necessary to prohibit ACOs from distributing
incentive payments to beneficiaries in the form of cash. Cash incentive
payments would be inherently difficult to track for reporting and
auditing purposes since they would not necessarily be tied to documents
providing written evidence that a cash incentive payment was furnished
to an eligible beneficiary for a qualifying service. The inability to
trace a cash incentive would make it difficult for CMS to ensure that
an ACO has uniformly furnished incentive payments to all eligible
beneficiaries and has not made excessive payments or otherwise used
incentive payments to improperly attract ``healthier'' beneficiaries
while disadvantaging beneficiaries who are less healthy or have a
disability. Therefore, we proposed to require that incentive payments
be in the form of a cash equivalent, which includes instruments
convertible to cash or widely accepted on the same basis as cash, such
as checks and debit cards.
In addition, we considered record retention requirements related to
beneficiary incentive programs. Section 1899(m)(2)(G) of the Act
provides that an ACO ``conducting an ACO Beneficiary Incentive Program
. . . shall, at such times and in such format as the Secretary may
require . . . retain such documentation as the Secretary may require,
including the amount and frequency of incentive payments made and the
number of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries receiving such
payments.'' We explained our belief that it is important for an ACO to
be accountable for its beneficiary incentive program and to mitigate
any gaming, fraud, or waste that may occur as a result of its
beneficiary incentive program. Accordingly, we proposed that any ACO
that implements a beneficiary incentive program maintain records that
include the following information: Identification of each beneficiary
that received an incentive payment, including name and HICN or Medicare
beneficiary identifier; the type (such as check or debit card) and
amount (that is, the value) of each incentive payment made to each
beneficiary; the date each beneficiary received a qualifying service
and the HCPCS code for the corresponding service; the identification of
the ACO provider/supplier that furnished the qualifying service; and
the date the ACO provided each incentive payment to each beneficiary.
We proposed that an ACO that establishes a beneficiary incentive
program be required to maintain and make available such records in
accordance with Sec. 425.314(b). In addition to these record retention
proposals, we explained that any ACO that establishes a beneficiary
incentive program would be expected to update its compliance plan (as
required under Sec. 425.300(b)(2)), to address any finalized
regulations that address beneficiary incentive programs.
Furthermore, we proposed that an ACO be required to fully fund the
costs associated with operating a beneficiary incentive program,
including the cost of any incentive payments. We further proposed to
prohibit ACOs from accepting or using funds furnished by an outside
entity, including, but not limited to, an insurance company,
pharmaceutical company, or any other entity outside of the ACO, to
finance its beneficiary incentive program. We explained our belief that
these requirements are necessary to reduce the likelihood of undue
influence resulting in inappropriate steering of beneficiaries to
specific products or providers/suppliers. We sought comments on this
issue.
We also proposed to incorporate language in section 1899(m)(2)(E)
of the Act, which provides that ``[t]he Secretary shall not make any
separate payment to an ACO for the costs, including incentive payments,
of
[[Page 67984]]
carrying out an ACO Beneficiary Incentive Program . . . Nothing in this
subparagraph shall be construed as prohibiting an ACO from using shared
savings received under this section to carry out an ACO Beneficiary
Incentive Program.'' Specifically, we proposed under Sec.
425.304(a)(2) that the policy regarding use of shared savings apply
with regard to both in-kind items and services furnished under Sec.
425.304(b) and incentive payments furnished under Sec. 425.304(c).
Further, we proposed to prohibit ACOs from shifting the cost of
establishing or operating a beneficiary incentive program to a Federal
health care program, as defined at section 1128B(f) of the Act.
Essentially, ACOs would not be permitted to bill the cost of an
incentive payment to any plan or program that provides health benefits,
whether directly, through insurance, or otherwise, which is funded
directly, in whole or in part, by the United States Government. We
expressed our belief this requirement is necessary because billing
another Federal health care program for the cost of a beneficiary
incentive program would potentially violate section 1899(m)(2)(E) of
the Act which prohibits the Secretary from making any separate payment
to an ACO for the costs of carrying out a beneficiary incentive
program, including the costs of incentive payments. We sought comments
on all of our proposed program integrity requirements.
In addition, we proposed to implement the language in section
1899(m)(2)(F) of the Act that ``incentive payments made by an ACO . . .
shall be disregarded for purposes of calculating benchmarks, estimated
average per capita Medicare expenditures, and shared savings under this
section.'' We also proposed to disregard incentive payments made by an
ACO for purposes of calculating shared losses under this section given
that that shared savings would be disregarded.
Furthermore, we proposed to implement the language set forth in
section 1899(m)(3) of the Act, which provides that ``any payment made
under an ACO Beneficiary Incentive Program . . . shall not be
considered income or resources or otherwise taken into account for the
purposes of determining eligibility for benefits or assistance (or the
amount or extent of benefits or assistance) under any Federal program
or any State or local program financed in whole or in part with Federal
funds; or any Federal or state laws relating to taxation.'' We included
this in our proposal at Sec. 425.304(c)(6).
With regard to termination of a beneficiary incentive program,
section 1899(m)(2)(H) of the Act provides that the ``Secretary may
terminate an ACO Beneficiary Incentive Program . . . at any time for
reasons determined appropriate by the Secretary.'' We explained our
belief that it would be appropriate for CMS to terminate an ACO's use
of the beneficiary incentive program for failure to comply with the
requirements of our finalized proposals at Sec. 425.304, in whole or
in part, and for the reasons set forth in Sec. 425.218(b), and we
proposed this policy at Sec. 425.304(c)(7). We solicited comment on
whether it would be appropriate for the Secretary to terminate a
beneficiary incentive program in other circumstances as well, or
whether an ACO should have the ability to terminate its beneficiary
incentive program early. In addition, we proposed to require any ACO
that wishes to reestablish a beneficiary incentive program after
termination to reapply in accordance with the procedures established by
CMS. We also proposed to modify our regulations at Sec. 425.800 to
implement the language set forth in section 1899(g)(6) of the Act,
which provides that there shall be no administrative or judicial review
under section 1869 or 1878 of the Act or otherwise of the termination
of an ACO beneficiary incentive program.
With regard to evaluation of beneficiary incentive programs, we
noted that section 50341(c) of the Bipartisan Budget Act requires that,
no later than October 1, 2023, the Secretary evaluate and report to
Congress an analysis of the impact of implementing beneficiary
incentive programs on health expenditures and outcomes. We welcomed
comments on whether there might be information that we should require
ACOs to maintain (in addition to the information that would be
maintained as part of record retention requirements set forth at
proposed Sec. 425.304(c)(4)(i)) to support such an evaluation of
beneficiary incentive programs. We noted, however, that we do not want
to discourage participation by imposing overly burdensome data
management requirements on ACOs. We therefore sought comment on
reporting requirements for ACOs that are approved to establish a
beneficiary incentive program.
In addition, we noted that under the existing regulations for
monitoring ACO compliance with program requirements, CMS may employ a
range of methods to monitor and assess ACOs, ACO participants and ACO
providers/suppliers to ensure that ACOs continue to satisfy Shared
Savings Program eligibility and program requirements (Sec. 425.316).
We explained that the scope of this provision would include monitoring
ACO, ACO participant, and ACO provider/supplier compliance with the
requirements for establishing and operating a beneficiary incentive
program.
We considered whether beneficiaries should be notified of the
availability of a beneficiary incentive program. Because beneficiary
incentives may be subject to abuse, we expressed our belief that it is
necessary, and we proposed, to prohibit the advertisement of a
beneficiary incentive program. We explained that we were considering,
however, whether ACOs should be required to make beneficiaries aware of
the incentive via approved outreach material from CMS. For example,
under the program's existing regulations (Sec. 425.312(a)), including
as revised in section II.C.3.a. of this final rule, all ACO
participants are required to notify beneficiaries that their ACO
providers/suppliers are participating in the Shared Savings Program. We
solicited comment on whether the notifications required under Sec.
425.312(a) should include information regarding the availability of an
ACO's beneficiary incentive program, and, if so, whether CMS should
supply template language on the topic. We also sought comment on how
and when an ACO might otherwise notify its beneficiaries that its
beneficiary incentive program is available, without inappropriately
steering beneficiaries to voluntarily align with the ACO or to seek
care from specific ACO participants, and, whether it would be
appropriate to impose restrictions regarding advertising a beneficiary
incentive program. We noted that we would expect any beneficiary
notifications regarding incentive payments to be maintained and made
available for inspection in accordance with Sec. 425.314.
To ensure transparency and to meet the requirements of section
1899(m)(2)(G) of the Act requiring that an ACO ``conducting an ACO
Beneficiary Incentive Program. . . shall, at such times and in such
format as the Secretary may require, report to the Secretary such
information. . .as the Secretary may require, including the amount and
frequency of incentive payments made and the number of Medicare fee-
for-service beneficiaries receiving such payments,'' we further
proposed to revise the program's public reporting requirements in Sec.
425.308 to require any ACO that has been approved to implement a
beneficiary incentive program to publicly report certain information
about incentive payments
[[Page 67985]]
on its public reporting web page. Specifically, we proposed to require
ACOs to publicly report, for each performance year, the total number of
beneficiaries who receive an incentive payment, the total number of
incentive payments furnished, HCPCS codes associated with any
qualifying payment for which an incentive payment was furnished, the
total value of all incentive payments furnished, and the total type of
each incentive payment (for example, check or debit card) furnished. We
noted that this proposed policy would require reporting for the 6-month
performance year that begins on July 1, 2019. We sought comment on
whether information about a beneficiary incentive program should be
publicly reported by the ACO or simply reported to CMS annually or upon
request.
In summary, we proposed to revise the regulation at Sec. 425.304
to enable an ACO participating in Track 2, levels C, D, or E of the
BASIC track, or the ENHANCED track, to establish a beneficiary
incentive program to provide incentive payments to beneficiaries for
qualifying primary care services in compliance with the requirements
outlined in the revised regulations.
Our proposed policies concerning an ACO's ability to establish a
beneficiary incentive program are summarized in Table 11.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.015
Comment: Commenters generally supported our proposed policies
regarding beneficiary incentive programs. Commenters stated that the
provision of beneficiary incentive payments may lead to more patient
engagement opportunities. Some commenters specifically expressed that
our proposed policy is not overly restrictive and is instead attentive
to minimizing provider and beneficiary burden.
A few commenters who generally supported the proposal expressed
that CMS should ensure that each ACO that implements a beneficiary
incentive program has maximum flexibility to tailor the program so that
it fits the needs of the ACO's beneficiaries. One commenter expressed
support for our proposal because it would give ACOs the flexibility to
determine what types of incentives to use (that is, in-kind incentives
or incentive payments under a CMS-approved beneficiary incentive
program).
However, several commenters expressed concern about the potential
administrative burden and operational costs associated with
implementing a beneficiary incentive program and expressed that such
programs should remain optional. One commenter expressed that, because
an ACO must bear the costs of any incentive payment and furnish an
incentive payment to each assigned beneficiary for each qualifying
service, the costs to an ACO that serves high-risk patients may be
greater than the costs to an ACO that serves low-risk patients (because
high-risk patients may need receive more qualifying services). The
commenter indicated that our proposed policy would therefore likely
discourage ACOs from transitioning to performance-based risk. Other
commenters stated generally that a beneficiary incentive program would
create additional frustration for staff and add expense to office
operations.
Response: While we appreciate the concerns raised by commenters
regarding the administrative and operational costs associated with
operating a beneficiary incentive program, we emphasize that ACOs are
not required to establish a beneficiary incentive program. Instead,
each eligible ACO has the discretion to decide
[[Page 67986]]
whether to apply to offer such a program. We believe it is important to
provide certain ACOs under two-sided risk with the option to establish
a CMS-approved beneficiary incentive program as an additional tool for
managing the care of assigned beneficiaries. Thus, pursuant to and
consistent with the requirements in section 1899(m) of the Act, we will
permit certain ACOs to apply to establish a beneficiary incentive
program. Any ACO that wishes to establish a beneficiary incentive
program should evaluate the costs and potential administrative burden
and whether it has the resources to successfully implement a
beneficiary incentive program prior to submitting an application
because an ACO that submits an application to establish a beneficiary
incentive program would be required to implement the program if its
application is approved.
In terms of flexibility for ACOs to design their beneficiary
incentive program to fit the needs of its beneficiaries, we are
providing ACOs with some flexibility to determine the value of the
incentive payments that they will furnish under a beneficiary incentive
program (that is, a value of up to $20 per incentive payment to each
assigned beneficiary for each qualifying service received) and the form
of incentive payments (that is, whether an incentive payments will be
made as a check, debit card, or a traceable cash equivalent). However,
due to various restrictions in section 50341 of the Bipartisan Budget
Act and the potential for fraud and abuse, we are otherwise limiting an
ACO's flexibility with regard to how it may implement a beneficiary
incentive program. We intend to monitor beneficiary incentive programs
to determine whether it may be appropriate to afford ACOs additional
flexibility in implementing a beneficiary incentive program in future
rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter recommended that CMS extend the window in
which an ACO must provide an incentive payment to beneficiary from 30
to 45 days from the date the qualifying service is furnished. Another
commenter suggested that CMS allow ACOs to provide beneficiaries with a
$40 incentive payment once annually, similar to the Next Generation ACO
Model.
Response: As we previously explained, section 1899(m)(2)(D) of the
Act requires that an incentive payment be made for each qualifying
service furnished to a beneficiary be made no later than 30 days after
a qualifying service is furnished to the beneficiary. Therefore, in
order to comply with section 1899(m)(2)(D) of the Act, we decline to
extend the payment window for a qualifying service beyond 30 days or to
allow ACOs to provide beneficiaries with a $40 incentive payment once
annually.
Comment: One commenter requested that CMS clarify whether incentive
payments furnished under an approved beneficiary incentive program
could implicate the federal fraud and abuse laws, such as the civil
monetary penalties law provision relating to beneficiary inducements.
Response: Section 1128B(b)(3)(K) of the Act states that ``illegal
remuneration'' under the anti-kickback statute does not include ``an
incentive payment made to a Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary by an
ACO under an ACO Beneficiary Incentive Program established under
subsection (m) of section 1899, if the payment is made in accordance
with the requirements of such subsection and meets such other
conditions as the Secretary may establish.'' Further, pursuant to
section 1128(A)(i)(6)(B) of the Act, a practice permissible under the
anti-kickback statute, whether through statutory exception or
regulations issued by the Secretary, is also excepted from the
beneficiary inducements CMP. Parties are encouraged to consult legal
counsel as needed.
Comment: Several commenters raised program integrity concerns
regarding beneficiary incentive programs and suggested that CMS closely
monitor any approved beneficiary incentive program. A few commenters
stated that CMS should be mindful of inadvertently allowing ACOs to use
beneficiary incentive programs to cherry-pick patients. For example,
one ACO suggested that CMS implement safeguards to ensure that high-
revenue ACOs do not inadvertently attract healthier patients, which
could potentially skew quality metrics. Another commenter expressed
similar concerns regarding the lack of safeguards applicable to
beneficiary incentive programs, which could present opportunities for
gaming. The commenter suggested that CMS implement an audit process,
issue guidance, and impose additional requirements designed to minimize
beneficiary cherry-picking and to mitigate MA parity concerns to ensure
that ACOs would be unable to specifically target and engage certain
individuals to selectively control their risk profile. Another
commenter recommended that CMS evaluate beneficiary incentive programs
prior to the date required by section 50341 of the Bipartisan Budget
Act, on the basis that such programs are subject to abuse and may have
unintended consequences.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' concerns that some ACOs may
attempt to target a beneficiary incentive program toward beneficiaries
with certain health profiles and we agree that program safeguards
should prohibit an ACO from cherry-picking beneficiaries. We note that
we have proposed, and we are finalizing, several safeguards at Sec.
425.304(c) to help mitigate the program integrity risks associated with
beneficiary incentive programs. For example, under Sec.
425.304(c)(4)(iv) ACOs will be prohibited from offering an incentive
payment as part of an advertisement or solicitation to beneficiaries.
In addition, under Sec. 425.304(c)(3)(iv)(C) an ACO will be required
to furnish incentive payments in the same amount to each eligible
beneficiary. We believe these safeguards will prevent larger, high
revenue ACOs with a beneficiary incentive program from steering
beneficiaries from smaller, low revenue ACOs that do not have a
beneficiary incentive program and will also limit the ability of ACOs
to cherry-pick certain beneficiaries.
In addition, we are also finalizing proposed revisions to the audit
and record retention requirements set forth at Sec. 425.314(a)(4) and
(b)(1) to ensure that we will have the ability to effectively audit an
ACO's operation of its beneficiary incentive program. Furthermore, we
note that, under the existing regulations for monitoring ACO compliance
with program requirements, we may employ a range of methods to monitor
and assess ACOs, ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers to ensure
that ACOs continue to satisfy Shared Savings Program eligibility and
program requirements (Sec. 425.316). The scope of this provision would
allow us to monitor ACO, ACO participant, and ACO provider/supplier
compliance with the requirements for establishing and operating a
beneficiary incentive program. We believe that the finalized program
integrity requirements at Sec. 425.304(c)(4) and our existing
regulatory safeguards will mitigate the commenters' concerns.
Comment: We received several comments related to our proposed bases
for termination of an ACO's beneficiary incentive program. One
commenter expressed that CMS should have the option to terminate an
ACO's beneficiary incentive program when the ACO uses its program to
improperly steer or influence beneficiaries, fails to maintain records
regarding its program or make such records available to CMS, or
otherwise fails to meet the
[[Page 67987]]
requirements of the program. The commenter recommended that CMS
establish clear standards with which an ACO must comply in order to
operate a beneficiary incentive program. The commenter also indicated
that termination should be a last resort and suggested that, when a
beneficiary incentive program is terminated for noncompliance with
program requirements, beneficiaries, the public, and other ACOs, should
receive advanced notice of the termination and the opportunity to
submit to CMS comments regarding the termination, including CMS's basis
for termination.
Response: We plan to issue guidance regarding the bases for which
we may require an ACO to terminate its beneficiary incentive program
under Sec. 425.304(c)(7). We agree with the commenter that an ACO
should notify its assigned beneficiaries that its beneficiary incentive
program is terminated in cases where CMS requires such termination due
to the ACO's noncompliance with program requirements. However, we
disagree with the commenter's suggestion that the public should have
advanced notice of the termination and the opportunity to submit
comments to CMS. Our bases for termination relate to noncompliance with
CMS regulations, accordingly, we believe that providing the public with
an opportunity to comment on a proposed termination would be
inappropriate. We will monitor ACO implementation of beneficiary
incentive programs and we will determine whether termination is
appropriate, without public comment, in cases where an ACO is
noncompliant with program requirements.
Comment: Some commenters do not believe that the $20 maximum amount
for an incentive payment is sufficient to encourage beneficiaries to
receive qualifying services. Commenters cited various reasons such as
the cost associated with long distance travel. Some of these commenters
suggested that CMS permit ACOs to reimburse beneficiaries for
transportation costs in addition to furnishing a $20 monetary incentive
payment for each qualifying service. One commenter suggested that CMS
allow ACOs to share a percentage of savings with its beneficiaries and
provide a higher percentage of savings to high-risk patients, so that
ACOs can better engage riskier populations. Another commenter expressed
that a one-size-fits-all approach to incentive payment amounts might
not serve all ACO participants well because ACO participants may
operate in different environments and may want to offer incentive
payments in different amounts, as appropriate for their region.
Response: We recognize the commenters' concerns regarding setting
the maximum value of the incentive payment amount to $20 (as adjusted
annually) for each qualifying service. However, this $20 maximum value
for any monetary incentive payment is consistent with the requirements
in section 1899(m)(2)(D) of the Act. Earlier in the preamble, we
explained that, under existing Sec. 425.304(a), an ACO may furnish to
beneficiaries prepaid, non-transferable vouchers that are redeemable
for transportation services solely to and from an appointment with a
health care provider. We believe this addresses the concerns of
commenters who believe that CMS should allow ACOs to reimburse
beneficiaries for transportation costs in addition to furnishing a $20
monetary incentive payment for each qualifying service. In addition, we
explained that Section 1899(m)(2)(D) of the Act requires that an
incentive payment offered under a beneficiary incentive program be in
the same amount for each Medicare FFS beneficiary. Accordingly, we
decline to adopt the suggestion that we allow ACOs to share a
percentage of savings with its beneficiaries and provide a higher
percentage of savings to high-risk patients. Furthermore, while we
understand the commenter's concern about a one-size-fits-all approach
to incentive payment amounts, we believe that requiring ACOs to provide
a uniform incentive amount for each qualifying service mitigates the
potential for abuse, including the potential that ACOs will provide
higher incentives in some areas to attract healthier beneficiaries and/
or excluding some beneficiaries from receiving an incentive due to
their location and/or health status.
Comment: One commenter sought clarification as to whether a
beneficiary can receive more than one incentive payment per year,
whether a beneficiary can deny receipt of an incentive payment, and
what an ACO would need to do if a beneficiary denied an incentive
payment.
Response: We reiterate that an ACO approved to operate a
beneficiary incentive program is required to furnish an incentive
payment to each beneficiary each time a beneficiary receives a
qualifying service. Thus, if a beneficiary is prospectively assigned to
an ACO participating in the ENHANCED track and receives two primary
care services that are considered qualifying services, the ACO
operating a beneficiary incentive program would be required to furnish
two incentive payments to the beneficiary. Although we do not believe
that it will be likely, a beneficiary may deny receipt of an incentive
payment, we will provide additional clarification on how ACOs should
handle such situations in sub-regulatory guidance.
Comment: Some commenters expressed that an ACO should not be
required to finance a beneficiary incentive program and that they
should be allowed to finance a program using funds from organizations
outside of the ACO. One commenter stated that CMS's concerns regarding
undue influence could be mitigated by establishing appropriate
safeguards, including accounting mechanisms for outside funds and
public disclosure of funding sources.
A few commenters believe that CMS should fund beneficiary incentive
programs, including incentive payments. Other commenters proposed that
CMS should pay in full for any qualifying service included as part of
the Shared Savings Program attribution methodology. These same
commenters expressed that CMS should also be responsible for any
beneficiary copayment for a qualifying service, rather than requiring
an ACO to fund an incentive payment, which a beneficiary may then use
to pay for a part of the beneficiary's copayment.
Response: We decline to reconsider our proposed ban on allowing
ACOs to use funds from an outside entity to establish or operate a
beneficiary incentive program. We are concerned that non-ACO entities
would offer remuneration to ACOs in order to influence them to order
items or services from the outside entity, which may ultimately affect
a beneficiary's care coordination through the ACO. Although this
concern may be mitigated by program requirements that further promote
transparency, we would still be concerned that ACOs would not
accurately disclose outside funding sources and that it would be
difficult to track such funding sources. Thus, we decline to reconsider
our prohibition on ACOs using funding from entities outside of the ACO
to finance a beneficiary incentive programs.
In addition, we disagree with the recommendation that CMS fund
beneficiary incentive programs. Section 1899(m)(2)(E) of the Act
specifically prohibits the Secretary from making any separate payment
to an ACO for the costs of carrying out a beneficiary incentive
program, including the costs of incentive payments. In addition, we
note that beneficiary incentive programs are voluntary and that any ACO
that is concerned about the potential costs
[[Page 67988]]
associated with implementing a beneficiary incentive program can choose
to refrain from offering such a program. We emphasize that ACOs that
choose to refrain from offering a beneficiary incentive program may
still choose to offer certain in-kind items and services to
beneficiaries in accordance with Sec. 425.304(b).
Comment: A few commenters recommended that CMS consider the
significant financial investment required by ACOs that establish a
beneficiary incentive program when rebasing benchmarks. One commenter
recommended that CMS consider positively adjusting an ACO's performance
year financial results based on the ACO's beneficiary incentive program
expenses, which will add to the ACO's operational costs and limit the
ACO's resources.
Response: Section 1899(m)(2)(F) of the Act provides that
``incentive payments made by an ACO . . . shall be disregarded for
purposes of calculating benchmarks, estimated average per capita
Medicare expenditures, and shared savings.'' Thus, we decline to adopt
suggestions that we consider an ACO's costs associated with
establishing or implementing a beneficiary incentive program in
rebasing benchmarks or in adjusting an ACO's financial results.
Comment: Some commenters recommended that CMS explore additional
tools similar to beneficiary incentive programs to encourage
beneficiaries to seek and receive preventative and care management
services that ultimately lower costs and reduce unnecessary
utilization. One commenter requested that CMS provide descriptive
examples of permissible beneficiary incentive programs and implement a
system to respond to ACOs' questions regarding such programs. A few
commenters suggested that we allow ACOs to furnish beneficiary
incentives similar to those provided under Medicare Advantage (MA). One
of the commenters specifically expressed that CMS should incorporate
aspects of the MA Value-Based Insurance Design Model into the Shared
Savings Program, by allowing ACOs to offer supplemental benefits such
as food vouchers or reduced cost sharing to align beneficiaries with
specified chronic conditions. Another commenter urged CMS to consider
allowing ACOs to use patient engagement tools (including those provided
by MA), such as allowing NPI-level participation, providing ACOs with
upfront funding for transportation services, and waiving certain post-
discharge home supervision requirements.
A few commenters proposed that CMS allow ACOs to waive copayments.
One of these commenters recommended that CMS, OIG, and the Innovation
Center allow ACOs to waive co-payments and deductibles in the ACO's
first performance year and then conditionally based on an ACO's
achievement of minimum quality scores in subsequent years. Another
commenter encouraged CMS to waive patient cost sharing for certain
health services that have been shown to successfully provide
beneficiaries with preventative care services such as care management
(including annual wellness visits and chronic care management
services), stating that the administrative burden associated with
collecting cost sharing leads many health care providers to simply not
offer certain services.
Response: We will take the commenters' suggestions under
consideration for future rulemaking, however, at this time, we are
implementing beneficiary incentive programs in accordance with the
provisions as set forth in section 1899(m) of the Act. We direct
commenters to our discussion in the preamble to the August 2018
proposed rule (see 83 FR 41868 through 41874), where we explained the
wide variety of incentives that could be acceptable under our existing
regulation at Sec. 425.304(a).
Comment: Some commenters suggested that entities other than an ACO
should be permitted to distribute incentive payments to beneficiaries.
One commenter recommended that we modify our proposed policy to allow
ACO participants to furnish incentive payments on the basis that ACO
participants will likely share in an ACO's savings and losses. Another
commenter stated that it would be more effective if ACO provider/
suppliers, and not the ACO legal entity, furnish inventive payments at
the point of care. These commenters noted that this would help prevent
incentives from being used as a recruitment tool. Another commenter
recommended that we permit each individual ACO to determine the best
method for distributing incentive payments under its beneficiary
incentive program. Other commenters suggested that we allow an ACO to
implement its beneficiary incentive program through select ACO
participants instead of on an ACO-wide basis.
Response: Section 1899(m)(1)(A) of the Act provides that ``an ACO .
. . may apply to establish an ACO Beneficiary Incentive Program to
provide incentive payments to such beneficiaries who are furnished
qualifying services.'' Additionally, 1899(m)(2)(D) of the Act refers to
``an incentive payment made by an ACO pursuant to an ACO Beneficiary
Incentive Program.'' We interpreted these two statements to mean that
only an ACO, not an ACO participant or ACO provider/supplier, may
furnish incentive payments to beneficiaries. We also believe that ACOs
are better equipped to deal with tracking incentives because they
receive claims data that they can use to identify beneficiaries who
received a qualifying service and must be offered an incentive payment.
In addition, we believe that ACOs are better equipped to handle
reporting, record retention, and audit requirements associated with
beneficiary incentive programs. For example, in most instances, ACOs
are better equipped to implement and standardize the necessary
reporting structure and record keeping requirements set forth in Sec.
425.304(c). ACO participants are less likely to have the technology
necessary to appropriately track and report on the distribution of
incentive payments. Allowing ACO participants to furnish incentive
payments may result in ACO participants incurring additional cost to
update their reporting systems. For these reasons, we decline to permit
entities other than an ACO to distribute incentive payments to
beneficiaries.
Comment: A few commenters suggested that CMS permit ACOs other than
those participating under Track 2, Levels C, D, or E of the BASIC
track, or the ENHANCED track to establish beneficiary incentive
programs. One of these commenters asserted that allowing additional
types of ACOs the opportunity to provide beneficiary incentive programs
could provide CMS with better information about the types of incentive
payments that work best for different kinds of beneficiaries (such as
beneficiaries from different backgrounds or with different conditions).
The commenter believes that this type of information could provide CMS
with valuable lessons learned and model practices that could later be
used to expand and strengthen beneficiary incentive programs across
other healthcare settings. Another commenter strongly believed that
high-value patient care is dependent upon clinicians having the tools
to effectively manage beneficiary care and therefore recommended that
we allow ACOs in one-sided model arrangements to provide incentives.
Response: While we appreciate the commenters' concerns, we decline
to permit ACOs other than those participating under Track 2, Levels C,
D,
[[Page 67989]]
or E of the BASIC track, or the ENHANCED track to establish beneficiary
incentive programs. Section 1899(m)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes only
``an ACO participating . . . under a payment model described in clause
(i) or (ii) of paragraph (2)(B)'' to establish an ACO beneficiary
incentive program. As we previously discussed, Track 2 and ENHANCED
track ACOs are described under section 1899(m)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, and
ACOs in Levels C, D, or E of the BASIC track are described under
section 1899(m)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. As a result, Track 2 ACOs,
ENHANCED track ACOs, and ACOs in Levels, C, D, or E of the BASIC track
are the only types of ACOs that are authorized to establish beneficiary
incentive programs. For these reasons, we decline to permit ACOs
participating in one-sided models to establish beneficiary incentive
programs.
Comment: In the August 2018 proposed rule, we sought comment on
whether beneficiary notifications required under Sec. 425.312(a)
should include information regarding the availability of an ACO's
beneficiary incentive program, and, if so, whether CMS should supply
template language on the topic. We received a variety of comments on
this issue. A few commenters supported CMS supplying template language
on the basis that it would limit the potential for fraud and abuse.
These commenters recommended that CMS test its template language to
ensure it is accurate, neutral, and not misleading. One ACO commenter
expressed that ACOs should be allowed to develop marketing and outreach
materials to explain the program and the terms under which a
beneficiary could receive an incentive payment. Another commenter
opposed a beneficiary notification requirement for beneficiary
incentive programs because not all ACOs have sufficient funding to
implement a beneficiary incentive program. The same commenter
recommended that CMS provide standardized language only to ACOs that
implement a beneficiary incentive program. A few other commenters
opposed beneficiary notification requirements and supported a
prohibition on advertisements on the basis that notifications and
advertisement may be used to inappropriately steer beneficiaries toward
an ACO. One commenter believed that advertising of beneficiary
incentive programs would be too fraught with program integrity risks
but stated that CMS should supply ACOs with template language for
beneficiary notifications on the topic.
Response: We have modified our policy to require that an ACO or its
ACO participants notify beneficiaries of the availability of the
beneficiary incentive program in accordance with Sec. 425.312(b). We
continue to believe that patient engagement is an important part of
motivating and encouraging more active participation by beneficiaries
in their health care and that notifying beneficiaries of their ability
to receive an incentive payment may encourage beneficiaries to obtain
medically necessary primary care services. We also agree with
commenters who believe that ACOs that operate a beneficiary incentive
program should use a standardized template, developed by CMS, to inform
beneficiaries of the availability of a beneficiary incentive program.
Thus, as detailed in II.C.3.a, under Sec. 425.304(c)(4)(iii) and
as set forth in Sec. 425.312, we will require that an ACO or its ACO
participants notify assigned beneficiaries of the availability of a
beneficiary incentive program using the standardized beneficiary notice
template provided by CMS. In Sec. 425.312 we provide the requirements
regarding how an ACO must furnish such notifications, specifically,
that the notification must be carried out by an ACO or its ACO
participants during each relevant performance year by providing each
assigned beneficiary with a standardized written notice prior to or at
the first primary care visit of the performance year in the form and
manner specified by CMS.
We believe it is important that ACOs and/or their ACO participants
provide beneficiaries with a standardized, CMS-developed beneficiary
notice in order to limit the potential for fraud and abuse. In
addition, in an effort to prevent ``cherry-picking'' and ``lemon-
dropping'' of beneficiaries, or other types of beneficiary steering, we
are finalizing our proposal to prohibit ACOs from offering an incentive
payment as part of marketing materials and activities, including but
not limited to, an advertisement or solicitation, to a beneficiary. We
believe this prohibition is necessary to prevent large, high revenue
ACOs that have the necessary capital to establish and operate a
beneficiary incentive program from steering beneficiaries away from
smaller, low revenue ACOs. We note that the beneficiary incentive
program notification required under Sec. 425.304(c)(4)(iii) will be
exempt from the prohibition on marketing a beneficiary incentive
program.
Upon publication of the rule, CMS will publish guidance regarding
beneficiary notifications that include education and outreach materials
that an ACO must use to notify beneficiaries' about its beneficiary
incentive program. Finally, we agree with commenters' suggestions that
we test the template language to ensure it is accurate, neutral, and
not misleading. We plan to work with our internal partners to conduct
beneficiary focus groups to test the template language.
Comment: We received conflicting commenter feedback regarding our
proposed record retention and reporting requirements related to
beneficiary incentive programs. A few commenters supported our proposal
to require ACOs to maintain and make available to CMS records that
identify each beneficiary that received an incentive payment, the ACO
provider/supplier that furnished the qualifying service, the amount of
each incentive payment made to each beneficiary, the date of service
each beneficiary received a qualifying service, and date the ACO
provided each incentive payment. These commenters suggested that ACOs
should be permitted to publically report this information to enable
interested beneficiaries to find more information on beneficiary
incentive programs. One of the commenters encouraged CMS to reduce
administrative burden by adopting a policy that requires ACOs to
maintain records related to their beneficiary incentive programs but
does not require ACOs to publicly report information under Sec.
425.308.
Other commenters were opposed to our proposed record retention
requirements for approved beneficiary incentive programs, arguing that
they impose overly burdensome data managing requirements that will
result in additional uncompensated operating expenses that CMS would
not reimburse. One commenter stated that our proposal would discourage
ACOs from implementing a beneficiary incentive program because it would
require them to develop a database to track and annually report on the
results of a beneficiary incentive program. Another commenter
recommended that CMS reduce burden on ACOs by instead relying on
existing claims or other available data for such information.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding the
potential burden of our proposed reporting requirements, however, we
believe it is important for an ACO to be accountable for its
beneficiary incentive program and that such requirements are necessary
to help mitigate any fraud, waste, or abuse that may occur under a
beneficiary incentive program. In addition, we note that section
1899(m)(2)(G) of the Act provides that
[[Page 67990]]
an ACO conducting a beneficiary incentive program ``shall, at such
times and in such format as the Secretary may require . . . retain such
documentation as the Secretary may require, including the amount and
frequency of incentive payments made and the number of Medicare fee-
for-service beneficiaries receiving such payments.'' Accordingly, we
are finalizing without modification our proposal to require that an ACO
that implements a beneficiary incentive program must, in accordance
with Sec. 425.314(b), maintain and make available the records
described in our proposal at Sec. 425.304(c)(4). We believe that the
transparency associated with our proposed reporting requirements is
necessary to help mitigate the potential for fraud and program
integrity concerns. In addition, we disagree with the suggestion that
CMS use its claims data to determine whether a beneficiary received a
qualifying service. We cannot safely assume that an ACO distributed an
incentive payment for a qualifying service to a beneficiary solely
based on claims data.
Comment: A few commenters opposed a policy that we considered in
our proposed rule that would require an ACO that offers a beneficiary
incentive program to notify CMS of any modification to its beneficiary
incentive program prior to implementing such modification. The
commenters expressed their belief that this requirement would be too
broad and would unnecessarily delay an ACO's ability to implement
changes to its operational processes because the ACO would need to
await CMS' decision on the ACO's proposed modification to its
beneficiary incentive program. One commenter expressed concern that
this sort of notification could prevent ACOs from making changes to the
program that would ultimately help beneficiaries.
Response: We have revisited whether to require an ACO to notify CMS
of any modification to its beneficiary incentive program prior to
implementing such modification. After additional consideration, we
believe such a policy would support program integrity because it would
allow us to ensure that the requested modification meets program
requirements. In addition, this policy would allow us to evaluate
beneficiary incentive programs as required under Sec. 50341(c) of the
BBA. Therefore, we are finalizing at Sec. 425.304(c)(2)(iii) a
provision that requires an ACO to submit to CMS a description of any
proposed material change to its CMS-approved beneficiary incentive
program. Such notice must be submitted in the form and manner and by
the deadline specified by CMS. The new provision further states that
CMS will promptly evaluate the proposed material change and approve or
reject it. We anticipate requiring 30 days advance notice of the
proposed changes, which should allow us sufficient time to review the
changes and thereby allow ACOs to make the approved changes on a timely
basis.
We anticipate providing additional guidance on what constitutes a
``material change'' to a beneficiary incentive program. As an example,
because we anticipate that the beneficiary incentive program
application will require ACOs to specify the value of the incentive
payment that the ACO is planning to issue for each qualifying service,
we would consider a material change to include any change in the dollar
amount of the incentive.
Comment: Some commenters recommended that CMS expand the definition
of qualifying service to include additional services. One commenter
suggested that we include annual wellness visits in the definition of
qualifying service to promote annual wellness visits as a best practice
for beneficiary engagement. One commenter suggested that CMS allow each
ACO to select which qualifying services it would incentivize under its
beneficiary incentive program. Another commenter suggested that
transportation services should be included in the definition of a
qualifying service.
Response: CMS appreciates the commenters' feedback. Section
1899(m)(2)(C) of the Act defines ``qualifying service,'' for which
incentive payments may be made to beneficiaries, as a primary care
service, as defined in Sec. 425.20 (or in any successor regulation),
with respect to which coinsurance applies under part B. Section
1899(m)(2)(C) of the Act also provides that a qualifying service is a
service furnished through an ACO by: (1) An ACO professional described
in section 1899(h)(1)(A) of the Act who has a primary care specialty
designation included in the definition of primary care physician under
Sec. 425.20 (or any successor regulation); (2) an ACO professional
described in section 1899(h)(1)(B) of the Act; or (3) a FQHC or RHC (as
such terms are defined in section 1861(aa) of the Act). For this
reason, we decline to allow ACOs to select the qualifying services that
they would incentivize under a beneficiary incentive program or to
include transportation services in the definition of a qualifying
service. However, we will consider expanding the definition of primary
care service (as defined in Sec. 425.20) in future rulemaking so that
additional services, such as wellness visits, may be considered
``qualifying services.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that CMS make available summary
information about the use of beneficiary incentive programs by
beneficiaries when ACO program results are released to help ACOs
determine whether to implement a beneficiary incentive program.
Response: We will consider the commenter's suggestion to provide
ACOs with analyses of the use of the beneficiary incentive programs in
future years, after we have gathered sufficient program data.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that CMS permit ACOs to use
targeted beneficiary incentive payments as tool in population health
management. One commenter suggested that enabling ACOs to leverage
beneficiary incentives to target certain high-risk populations while
excluding lower-risk populations, may maximize an ACO's ability to make
the most of limited resources and address the needs of high-risk
beneficiaries.
Response: Section 1899(m) of the Act does not differentiate between
high- and low-risk beneficiaries and does not authorize CMS to do so.
Rather, section 1899(m)(2)(B) requires that an ACO that establishes a
beneficiary incentive program provide incentive payments to each
assigned Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary who is furnished a
qualifying service. Furthermore, we believe it would be unfair to
prohibit certain beneficiaries from receiving an incentive payment
under an approved beneficiary incentive program and we would not want
to dissuade low-risk beneficiaries from receiving preventative care in
the form of a primary care service. Accordingly, we decline to adopt
the commenters' suggestions.
Final Action: We are finalizing our proposals regarding beneficiary
incentive program as follows:
We are finalizing Sec. 425.304(c)(1) to state that for
performance years beginning on July 1, 2019 and for subsequent
performance years, an ACO that is participating under Track 2,
Levels C, D, or E of the BASIC track, or the ENHANCED track may
establish a beneficiary incentive program to provide monetary
incentive payments to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who
receive a qualifying service.
We are finalizing our application procedures policy at
Sec. 425.304(c)(2) to state that to establish or reestablish a
beneficiary incentive program, an ACO must submit a complete
application in the form and manner and by a deadline specified by
CMS. CMS will evaluate an ACO's application to
[[Page 67991]]
determine whether the ACO satisfies the requirements of this
section, and approve or deny the application. If an ACO wishes to
make a material change to its CMS approved beneficiary incentive
program, the ACO must submit a description of the material change to
CMS in a form and manner and by a deadline specified by CMS. CMS
will promptly evaluate the proposed material change and approve or
reject it.
We are finalizing beneficiary incentive program
requirements at Sec. 425.304(c)(3). Under section Sec.
425.304(c)(3) an ACO must begin to operate its approved beneficiary
incentive program beginning on July 1, 2019 or January 1 of the
relevant performance year. In addition, we are finalizing Sec.
425.304(c)(3)(i) to state that, subject to the termination
provisions we are finalizing at Sec. 425.304(c)(7), an ACO must
operate its approved beneficiary incentive program for an initial
period of 18 months in the case of an ACO approved to operate a
beneficiary incentive program beginning on July 1, 2019, or 12
months in the case of an ACO approved to operate a beneficiary
incentive program beginning on January 1 of a performance year. For
each consecutive year that an ACO wishes to operate its beneficiary
incentive program after the CMS-approved initial period, it must
certify its intent to continue to operate the beneficiary incentive
program for the entirety of the relevant performance year and that
the beneficiary incentive program meets all applicable requirements.
Furthermore, we are finalizing provisions at Sec. 425.304(c)(3)(ii)
to state that a fee-for-service beneficiary is eligible to receive
an incentive payment under a beneficiary incentive program if the
beneficiary is assigned to the ACO through either preliminary
prospective assignment, as described in Sec. 425.400(a)(2), or
prospective assignment, as described in Sec. 425.400(a)(3). We are
finalizing Sec. 425.304(c)(3)(iii) to state that a qualifying
service for the program is a primary care service (as defined in
Sec. 425.20) with respect to which coinsurance applies under Part
B, if the service is furnished through an ACO by either an ACO
professional who has a primary care specialty designation included
in the definition of primary care physician under Sec. 425.20, an
ACO professional who is a physician assistant, nurse practitioner,
or certified nurse specialist, or a FQHC or RHC. In addition, we are
finalizing Sec. 425.304(c)(3)(iv) to state that an ACO that
establishes a beneficiary incentive program must furnish an
incentive payment for each qualifying service furnished to an
eligible beneficiary. Each such incentive payment must: (1) Be in
the form of a check, debit card, or a traceable cash equivalent; (2)
not exceed $20, as adjusted annually by the percentage increase in
the consumer price index for all urban consumers (United States city
average) for the 12-month period ending with June of the previous
year, rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount; and (3) be
provided by the ACO to the beneficiary no later than 30 days after a
qualifying service is furnished. An ACO must furnish incentive
payments in the same amount to each eligible Medicare fee-for-
service beneficiary without regard to enrollment of such beneficiary
in a Medicare supplemental policy (described in section 1882(g)(1)
of the Act), in a State Medicaid plan under title XIX or a waiver of
such a plan, or in any other health insurance policy or health
benefit plan.
We are finalizing program integrity requirements at
Sec. 425.304(c)(4). Specifically, we are finalizing Sec.
425.304(c)(4)(i) to state that an ACO that establishes a beneficiary
incentive program must maintain records related to the beneficiary
incentive program that include: The identification of each
beneficiary that received an incentive payment, including
beneficiary name and HICN or Medicare beneficiary identifier; the
type and amount of each incentive payment made to each beneficiary;
the date each beneficiary received a qualifying service, the
corresponding HCPCS code for the qualifying service, and
identification of the ACO provider/supplier that furnished the
qualifying service; and the date the ACO provided each incentive
payment to each beneficiary. In addition, we are finalizing Sec.
425.304(c)(4)(ii) to state that An ACO must not use funds from any
entity or organization outside of the ACO to establish or operate a
beneficiary incentive program and must not directly, through
insurance, or otherwise, bill or otherwise shift the cost of
establishing or operating a beneficiary incentive program to a
Federal health care program. Furthermore, under Sec.
425.304(c)(4)(iii) we are requiring that an ACO or its ACO
participants notify assigned beneficiaries of the availability of
the beneficiary incentive program in accordance with Sec.
425.312(b). We are finalizing Sec. 425.304(c)(4)(iv) to state that,
except for the beneficiary notifications required under Sec.
425.304(c) section, the beneficiary incentive program must not be
the subject of marketing materials and activities, including but not
limited to, an advertisement or solicitation to a beneficiary or any
potential patient whose care is paid for in whole or in part by a
Federal health care program (as defined at 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(f)).
We are finalizing Sec. 425.304(c)(5) to state that CMS
disregards incentive payments made by an ACO under Sec.
425.304(c)(1) in calculating an ACO's benchmarks, estimated average
per capita Medicare expenditures, and shared savings and losses.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.304(c)(6) to state that
incentive payments made under a beneficiary incentive program are
not considered income or resources or otherwise taken into account
for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits or assistance
(or the amount or extent of benefits or assistance) under any
Federal program or under any State or local program financed in
whole or in part with Federal funds, or for purposes of any Federal
or State laws relating to taxation.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.304(c)(7) to state that CMS
may require an ACO to terminate its beneficiary incentive program at
any time for either failure to comply with the requirements set
forth in Sec. 425.304 or any of the grounds for ACO termination set
forth in Sec. 425.218(b).
d. Clarification of Existing Rules
As explained in the preamble to the August 2018 proposed rule, we
are also taking this opportunity to add regulation text at renumbered
Sec. 425.304(b)(3) to clarify that the in-kind items or services
provided to a Medicare FFS beneficiary under Sec. 425.304 must not
include Medicare-covered items or services, meaning those items or
services that would be covered under Title XVIII of the Act on the date
the in-kind item or service is furnished to the beneficiary. It was
always our intention that the in-kind items or services furnished under
existing Sec. 425.304(a) be non-Medicare-covered items and services so
that CMS can accurately monitor the cost of medically necessary care in
the Shared Savings Program and to minimize the potential for fraud and
abuse. We also clarify that the provision of in-kind items and services
is available to all Medicare FFS beneficiaries and is not limited
solely to beneficiaries assigned to an ACO. Finally, we proposed a
technical change to the title and structure of Sec. 425.304.
Specifically, we proposed to replace the title of Sec. 425.304 with
``Beneficiary incentives'' and to add a new section Sec. 425.305, with
a title ``Other program safeguards'', by redesignating paragraphs Sec.
425.304(b) and (c) as Sec. 425.305(a) and (b), and to make conforming
changes to regulations that refer to section Sec. 425.304.
Specifically, we proposed to make the following conforming changes:
amending Sec. 425.118 in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) by removing ``Sec.
425.304(b)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 425.305(a)''; amending
Sec. 425.224 in newly redesignated paragraph (b)(1)(v) by removing
``Sec. 425.304(b)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 425.305(a)'';
amending Sec. 425.310 in paragraph (c)(3) by removing ``Sec.
425.304(a)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 425.304''; and amending
Sec. 425.402 in paragraph (e)(3)(i) by removing ``Sec.
425.304(a)(2)'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 425.304(b)(1).''
Final Action: We did not receive any comments specifically
addressing our proposed technical changes to the title and structure of
Sec. 425.304. Therefore, we are finalizing our proposed technical
changes without modification.
3. Empowering Beneficiary Choice
a. Beneficiary Notifications
(1) Background on Beneficiary Notifications
To ensure full transparency between providers participating in
Shared Savings Program ACOs and the beneficiaries they serve, the
November 2011 final rule established requirements for how a Shared
Savings Program ACO must notify Medicare FFS beneficiaries receiving
primary care services at the
[[Page 67992]]
point of care that the physician, hospital, or other provider is
participating in a Shared Savings Program ACO (76 FR 67945 through
67946). Specifically, the November 2011 final rule established a
requirement that ACO participants provide standardized written notices
to beneficiaries of both their ACO provider's/supplier's participation
in the Shared Savings Program and the potential for CMS to share
beneficiary identifiable data with the ACO.
We initially established the beneficiary notification requirements
for ACOs to protect beneficiaries by ensuring patient engagement and
transparency, including requirements related to beneficiary
notification, since the statute does not mandate that ACOs provide
information to beneficiaries about the Shared Savings Program (76 FR
67945 through 67946). The beneficiary information notices included
information on whether a beneficiary was receiving services from an ACO
participant or ACO provider/supplier, and whether the beneficiary's
expenditure and quality data would be used to determine the ACO's
eligibility to receive a shared savings payment.
In the June 2015 final rule, we amended the beneficiary
notification requirement and sought comment on simplifying the process
of disseminating the beneficiary information notice. We received
numerous comments from ACOs that the beneficiary notification
requirement was too burdensome and created some confusion amongst
beneficiaries about the Shared Savings Program (80 FR 32739). As a
result, we revised the rule so that ACO providers/suppliers would be
required to provide the notification by simply posting signs in their
facilities and by making the notice available to beneficiaries upon
request.
We also amended our rule to streamline the beneficiary notification
process by which beneficiaries may decline claims data sharing and
finalized the requirement that ACO participants use CMS-approved
template language to notify beneficiaries regarding participation in an
ACO and the opportunity to decline data sharing. In order to streamline
operations, reduce burden and cost on ACOs and their providers, and
avoid creating beneficiary confusion, we also streamlined the process
for beneficiaries to decline data sharing by consolidating the data opt
out process through 1-800-MEDICARE in the June 2015 final rule (80 FR
32737 through 32743). Beneficiaries must contact 1-800-MEDICARE to
decline sharing their Medicare claims data or to reverse that decision.
As we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule, under the
program's current requirements, an ACO participant (for example
physician practices and hospitals) must notify beneficiaries in writing
of its participation in an ACO by posting signs in its facilities and,
in settings in which beneficiaries receive primary care services, by
making a standardized written notice (the ``Beneficiary Information
Notice'') available to beneficiaries upon request (Sec. 425.312). We
provide ACOs with templates, in English and Spanish, to share with
their ACO participants for display or distribution. To summarize:
The poster language template indicates the providers'
participation in the Shared Savings Program; describes ACOs and what
they mean for beneficiary care; highlights that a beneficiary's
freedom to choose his or her doctors and hospitals is maintained;
and indicates that beneficiaries have the option to decline to have
their Medicare Part A, B, and D claims data shared with their ACO or
other ACOs. The poster must be in a legible format for display and
in a place where beneficiaries can view it.
The Beneficiary Information Notice template covers the
same topics and includes details on how beneficiaries can select
their primary clinician via MyMedicare.gov and voluntarily align to
the ACO.
In addition to these two templates, there are currently two
other ways that beneficiaries can learn about ACOs and of their
option to decline Medicare claims data sharing with ACOs:
Medicare & You handbook. The language in the ACO
section of the handbook (available at https://www.medicare.gov/pubs/pdf/10050-Medicare-and-You.pdf) describes ACOs and tells
beneficiaries they will be notified at the point of care if their
doctor participates in the Shared Savings Program. It explains what
doctor participation in an ACO means for a beneficiary's care and
that beneficiaries have the right to receive care from any doctor
that accepts Medicare. The ACO section of the handbook also explains
that beneficiaries must call 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227) to
decline sharing their health care information with ACOs or to
reverse that decision.
1-800-MEDICARE. Customer service representatives are
equipped with scripted language about the Shared Savings Program,
including background about ACOs. The customer service
representatives also can collect information from beneficiaries
about declining or reinstating Medicare claims data sharing.
Further, beginning in July 2017, Medicare FFS beneficiaries have
been able to login to MyMedicare.gov to select the primary clinician
whom they believe is most responsible for their overall care
coordination (a process we refer to as voluntary alignment). The
instructions for selecting a primary clinician are also included in the
Medicare & You handbook, issued by CMS annually to Medicare
beneficiaries. The Shared Savings Program uses a beneficiary's
selection of a primary clinician for assignment purposes, when
applicable, for ACOs in all tracks beginning in performance year 2018
(Sec. 425.402(e)).
We have made information about the Shared Savings Program publicly
available to educate ACOs, providers/suppliers, beneficiaries and the
general public, and to further program transparency. This includes fact
sheets, program guidance and specifications, program announcements and
data available through the Shared Savings Program website (see https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/index.html). This material includes resources
designed to educate beneficiaries about the Shared Savings Program and
ACOs,\22\ and specifically on the voluntary alignment process.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Accountable Care Organizations & You, available at https://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/11588-Accountable-Care-Organizations-FAQs.pdf.
\23\ Empowering Patients to Make Decisions About Their
Healthcare: Register for MyMedicare.gov and Select Your Primary
Clinician, available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/vol-alignment-bene-fact-sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Proposed Revisions
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we proposed to revisit the
program's existing requirements at Sec. 425.312 to ensure
beneficiaries have a sufficient opportunity to be informed about the
program and how it may affect their care and their data (83 FR 41875).
We also proposed changes in response to section 50331 of the Bipartisan
Budget Act, which amends section 1899(c) of the Act to require that the
Secretary establish a process by which Medicare FFS beneficiaries are
(1) ``notified of their ability'' to identify an ACO professional as
their primary care provider (for purposes of assigning the beneficiary
to an ACO, as described in Sec. 425.402(e)) and (2) ``informed of the
process by which they may make and change such identification.''
In proposing revisions to Sec. 425.312 we considered how to make
the notification a comprehensive resource that compiles certain
information about the program and what participation in the program
means for beneficiary care. We were concerned that, while there are
many sources of information on the program that are available to
beneficiaries, the existing information exists in separate resources,
which may be time
[[Page 67993]]
consuming for beneficiaries to compile, and, as a result, may be
underutilized.
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we also considered methods of
notification that would better ensure that beneficiaries receive the
comprehensive notification at the point of care. Our existing
regulations emphasize use of posted signs in facilities and, in
settings where beneficiaries receive primary care services,
standardized written notices as a means to notify beneficiaries at the
point of care that ACO providers/suppliers are participating in the
program and of the beneficiary's opportunity to decline data sharing.
We expressed our concern that, although standardized written notices
must be made available upon request, few beneficiaries, or others who
accompany beneficiaries to their medical appointments, may initiate
requests for this information and, in turn, beneficiaries may not have
the information they need to make informed decisions about their health
care and their data.
Finally, in the August 2018 proposed rule, we considered how to
minimize burden on the ACO providers/suppliers that would provide the
notification. We sought to balance the requirements of the notification
to beneficiaries with the increased burden on health care providers
that could draw their attention away from patient care.
With these considerations in mind, and to further facilitate
beneficiary access to information on the Shared Savings Program, we
proposed to modify Sec. 425.312(a) to require additional content for
beneficiary notices. We proposed that, beginning July 1, 2019, the ACO
participant must notify beneficiaries at the point of care about
voluntary alignment in addition to notifying beneficiaries that its ACO
providers/suppliers are participating in the Shared Savings Program and
that the beneficiary has the opportunity to decline claims data
sharing. Specifically, the ACO participant must notify the beneficiary
of his or her ability to, and the process by which, he or she may
identify or change identification of a primary care provider for
purposes of voluntary alignment.
We proposed to modify Sec. 425.312(b) to require that, beginning
July 1, 2019, ACO participants must provide the information specified
in Sec. 425.312(a) to each Medicare FFS beneficiary at the first
primary care visit of each performance year. Under our proposal, an ACO
participant would be required to provide this notice during a
beneficiary's first primary care visit in the 6-month performance year
from July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, as well as the first
primary care visit in the 12-month performance year that begins on
January 1, 2020 (and in all subsequent performance years). We proposed
that this notice would be in addition to the existing requirement that
an ACO participant must post signs in its facilities and make
standardized written notices available upon request.
To mitigate the burden of this additional notification, we proposed
to require ACO participants to use a template notice that we would
prepare and make available to ACOs. We explained that the template
notice would contain all of the information required to be disclosed
under Sec. 425.312(a), including information on voluntary alignment.
With respect to voluntary alignment, we explained that the template
notice would provide details regarding how a beneficiary may select his
or her primary care provider on MyMedicare.gov, and the step-by-step
process by which a beneficiary could designate an ACO professional as
his or her primary care provider, and how the beneficiary could change
such designation. We also explained that the CMS-developed template
notice would encourage beneficiaries to check their ACO professional
designation regularly and to update such designation when they change
care providers or move to a new area. We stated that the template
notice could be provided to beneficiaries at their first primary care
visit during a performance year, and the same template notice could be
furnished upon request in accordance with our existing regulation at
Sec. 425.312(b)(2).
We expressed our belief that this proposed approach would
appropriately balance the factors we described and achieve our desired
outcome of more consistently educating beneficiaries about the program
while mitigating burden of additional notification on ACO participants.
In addition, we believed this approach would provide detailed
information on the program to beneficiaries more consistently at a
point in time when they may be inclined to review the notice and have
an opportunity to ask questions and address their concerns.
Furthermore, we believed this approach would pose relatively little
additional burden on ACO participants, since they are already required
to provide written notices to beneficiaries upon request.
We sought comment as to alternative means of dissemination of the
beneficiary notice, including the frequency with which and by whom the
notice should be furnished. For example, we sought comment on whether a
beneficiary should receive the written notice at the beneficiary's
first primary care visit of the performance year, or during the
beneficiary's first visit of the performance year with any ACO
participant. We also sought comment on whether there are alternative
media for disseminating the beneficiary notice that might be less
burdensome on ACOs, such as dissemination via email.
In addition, we solicited comment on whether the template notice
should include other information outlining ACO activities that may be
related to or affect a Medicare FFS beneficiary. We explained that such
activities could include: ACO quality reporting and improvement
activities, ACO financial incentives to lower growth in expenditures,
ACO care redesign processes (such as use of care coordinators), the
ACO's use of payment rule waivers (such as the SNF 3-day rule waiver),
and the availability of an ACO's beneficiary incentive program.
We also welcomed feedback on the format, content, and frequency of
our proposed additional notice to beneficiaries about the Shared
Savings Program, the benefits and drawbacks to requiring additional
notification about the program at the point of care, and the degree of
additional burden this notification activity could place on ACO
participants. More specifically, we welcomed feedback on the timing of
providing the proposed annual notice to the beneficiary, particularly
what would constitute the appropriate point of care for the beneficiary
to receive the notice.
We also took the opportunity to propose regulation text at
renumbered Sec. 425.312(a) to clarify our longstanding requirement
that beneficiary notification obligations apply with regard to all
Medicare FFS beneficiaries, not only to beneficiaries who have been
assigned to an ACO (76 FR 67945 through 67946). We sought comment on
whether an ACO that elects prospective assignment should be required to
disseminate the beneficiary notice at the point of care only to
beneficiaries who are prospectively assigned to the ACO, rather than to
all Medicare FFS beneficiaries.
Finally, we proposed technical changes to the title and structure
of Sec. 425.312. For example, we proposed to replace the title of
Sec. 425.312 with ``Beneficiary notifications.''
Comment: Although a few commenters supported our proposed changes
to the beneficiary notice requirements, most commenters did not support
them. One commenter, a national, nonprofit consumer service
organization that works to ensure access to affordable health care for
older adults and people with disabilities, supported
[[Page 67994]]
the revised beneficiary notice requirements. This commenter stated that
CMS templates--especially those that have been consumer-tested for
clarity and effectiveness--are appropriate when there is a risk of
beneficiary steering, such as with voluntary alignment. A few
commenters, including two national non-profit legal senior citizen
advocacy organizations and a provider advocacy group, generally
supported our proposal but urged us to do consumer testing on the
standardized notice that we would develop to ensure relevant
information is conveyed accurately and objectively, in a manner that
beneficiaries can use and understand.
Some commenters supported our proposal to require that the notice
address a beneficiary's ability to, and the process by which a
beneficiary may, identify a primary care provider for purposes of
voluntary alignment. One commenter expressed the belief that the
proposed notice requirements would encourage ACO participants to engage
patients in conversations describing patient rights; give beneficiaries
critical information about possible consequences of receiving care in
an ACO, including whether ACO participants are incentivized in ways
that could affect service delivery; and better enable beneficiaries to
select the best ACO for their needs. One commenter stated its support
for the proposal and believed that beneficiaries are more likely to
review the information and ask questions if the notice is provided at
the point of care. This commenter suggested that the beneficiary notice
should not simply be included with other routine forms.
However, in contrast, a majority of commenters stated that the new
notification requirements would be burdensome on practices from a
workflow, efficiency, and supply cost perspective. Some commenters
opined that it would be challenging to add another notice to the
important documents that patients are already asked to review with each
visit. Several commenters specifically stated that this proposal was in
direct contrast to our Patients over Paperwork initiative. Some
commenters stated that the administrative burden imposed by our
proposed notification requirements would especially burden ACOs
comprised of independent physician practices, which would have
difficulty ensuring that beneficiaries do not receive duplicative
notices if the beneficiaries see clinicians at different practices
during the year.
Some commenters stated that clinical workflows and electronic
record systems would require reconfiguration for scheduling additional
visit time, incorporating reminder prompts, and documentation of
required notice delivery. Some of these commenters also indicated that
our proposed policy would require a large investment by ACOs in
building out electronic health records (EHR) system workflows,
educating providers and staff, and tracking compliance with
requirements, taking away from the beneficiaries' care and taking away
from limited IT resources.
Many commenters requested that we refrain from implementing
mandatory written annual notifications. Several commenters suggested
that, if CMS believes that beneficiaries receive the notification, then
CMS should instead disseminate the notice to beneficiaries.
Many commenters expressed their belief that our proposed changes
would fail to improve the beneficiary notification process and
suggested that we continue with our existing beneficiary notification
requirements. Some commenters stated that CMS has not provided any
evidence that beneficiaries are inadequately notified. Other commenters
suggested that, rather than creating a new notice requirement, we
should strengthen the existing notifications that ACO participants
deliver to beneficiaries. In addition, many commenters noted that we
previously tried a similar notification policy that was later removed
in the 2015 Shared Savings Program final rule (80 FR 32740) after
stakeholders explained that the beneficiary notification template was
confusing to beneficiaries.
One commenter disagreed with the proposal while also describing our
existing notification requirements as too burdensome for ACO
participants. This commenter expressed its belief that it is costly for
an ACO to keep up with new templates and replace signs in its
facilities every year.
Response: We appreciate the support that we have received for our
proposed beneficiary notification requirements. In addition, while we
understand the apprehension that many commenters have regarding our
proposed beneficiary notification requirements, we believe that it is
important to revise our existing notification requirements to ensure
that beneficiaries receive information that puts them in the driver's
seat and provides them with the information they need to make decisions
about their care. The notifications will allow beneficiaries to more
fully engage in their health care by helping them better understand
their care options and make informed decisions regarding their health
care. We believe that this is especially important as the program has
made changes to the ways in which beneficiaries may be assigned to an
ACO (such as through voluntary alignment) and extended the beneficiary
enhancements that are available to ACOs and their assigned
beneficiaries.
For these reasons, we believe that it is important that
beneficiaries are informed that they are part of an ACO. Again, this
information will help beneficiaries better understand their care
options and make better-informed decisions regarding their health care.
For example, we believe that notifying beneficiaries about an ACO's
goals and objectives (for example, improving the health of
populations), and each ACO's strategy for achieving such goals and
objectives, can serve as a catalyst for educating beneficiaries about
the importance of preventive services such as annual wellness visits.
Furthermore, we note that we are required under section 1899(c) of
the Act to establish a process by which Medicare fee-for-service
beneficiaries are (1) ``notified of their ability'' to identify an ACO
professional as their primary care provider (for purposes of assigning
the beneficiary to an ACO), and (2) ``informed of the process by which
they may make and change such identification.'' We proposed changes to
our beneficiary notification requirements in part to address this
requirement.
We seek to balance the need to better engage beneficiaries in their
health care with the potential for increased burden on ACO
participants. Although many sources of information on the program are
already available to beneficiaries, as noted in the preamble to the
August 2018 proposed rule (80 FR 41875) we are concerned that the
existing information exists in separate resources, which may be time
consuming for beneficiaries to compile, and as a result, may be
underutilized. Moreover, although we appreciate commenters' concerns
that our proposed beneficiary notification requirements may require
ACOs or ACO participants to bare additional costs, implement system and
EHR changes, or allocate additional time for patient visits (so that
participants can explain the content of the notice to beneficiaries),
we believe that it is necessary to ensure that beneficiaries are aware
of the existence of the ACO to which they are assigned, the choice of
the ACO participant and its ACO providers/suppliers to participate in
the ACO, the beneficiary's alignment options, and, if applicable,
information on a beneficiary incentive program.
[[Page 67995]]
We believe that the use of CMS-developed templates, which would be
developed and tested with stakeholder feedback, will reduce the overall
burden on providers. In addition, after evaluating commenters'
concerns, we have decided to modify some of our proposed requirements
regarding the beneficiary notice to help further reduce the potential
for burden on ACOs and ACO participants.
First, we are modifying our proposed policy to allow an ACO or its
ACO participants to disseminate the beneficiary notifications. We
believe this change may help mitigate the potential for administrative
and operational burden on providers. We note that, in accordance with
Sec. 425.314(c), it is the ACO that will ultimately be accountable for
compliance with the beneficiary notification requirements.
Second, we will not require that the notification be provided to
beneficiaries at the point of care during a beneficiary's first primary
care visit of each performance year. Instead, we will require that an
ACO or its ACO participants disseminate the beneficiary notification at
a beneficiary's first primary care service visit of the performance
year or at some point earlier in the performance year. We believe that
this change will alleviate some of the operational burdens that may be
associated with tracking whether a beneficiary received a notice at its
first primary care service visit of a performance year.
Third, although we still encourage ACO participants to distribute
the notice to beneficiaries at the point of care to address any
beneficiary questions or concerns, we would permit an ACO or its ACO
participants to distribute beneficiary notifications through electronic
transmission (such as email) or mail. We note that regardless of the
method of notification used, under Sec. 425.314, the ACO must maintain
and make available evidence that a notification was distributed to each
beneficiary.
Finally, we note that we have also restructured the beneficiary
notification provision at Sec. 425.312 for clarity. Paragraph (a) of
that section now relates to the general notification requirement, which
applies with regard to all FFS beneficiaries. In addition, paragraph
(b) of that section relates to notifications regarding the availability
of a beneficiary incentive program, which applies only with regard to
assigned beneficiaries in an ACO that operates a beneficiary incentive
program. (As explained in section II.C.2.c. of this final rule, such
notifications will be required under Sec. 425.304(c)(4)(iii).) We
believe that beneficiary incentive program notification should apply
only with regard to assigned beneficiaries (the only types of
beneficiaries who can receive an incentive payment under a beneficiary
incentive program) because requiring an ACO to provide notice of the
availability of a beneficiary incentive program to all FFS
beneficiaries would essentially amount to marketing of a beneficiary
incentive program. We intend to issue subregulatory guidance regarding
the two notifications (the general notification and the beneficiary
incentive program notification) and anticipate providing two
notification templates: One that addresses the general notification
requirements at Sec. 425.312(a) and another that addresses only the
beneficiary incentive program requirements at Sec. 425.312(b).
Comment: We received many comments and feedback on the means of
dissemination of this additional notice to beneficiaries about the
Shared Savings Program, including the drawbacks to requiring additional
notification about the program at the point of care and the degree of
additional burden this notification activity may place on ACO
participants. A few commenters stated that ACO participants should be
allowed to decide the means of dissemination. Some commenters suggested
that CMS allow for the use of recorded telephone messages to
disseminate the beneficiary notifications. Many other commenters
suggested that CMS allow ACOs and/or ACO participants to distribute
beneficiary notices through electronic mediums. Some commenters
believed that ACOs should have the option to provide the beneficiary
notice in an electronic or paper format. Several commenters suggested
that ACOs be given the option to distribute beneficiary notices to
Medicare beneficiaries through means such as patient portal messages or
letters instead of being required to physically hand out the notices
during a face-to-face visit. These commenters believe that ACOs should
be permitted to take advantage of EHR capabilities that allow ACOs to
identify and send communications to beneficiaries. One commenter stated
that ACOs should provide the notice to beneficiaries via email. Another
commenter recommended that CMS consider providing ACOs with talking
points they can share with their ACO participants and ACO providers/
suppliers to guide verbal notifications to beneficiaries, rather than
requiring a written beneficiary notice requirement. Finally, one
commenter requested that CMS provide ACOs with beneficiary addresses
and phone numbers so that ACOs can contact beneficiaries with the
standardized notices on the primary care providers' behalf to
streamline the process and reduce the administrative burden.
Response: We understand the commenters concerns and, although we
still encourage ACO participants to distribute the notice to patients
at the point of care to address any questions or concerns that a
beneficiary may have, we plan to require an ACO (directly or through
its ACO participants) to distribute beneficiary notifications in
writing through electronic transmission (such as email) or mail. We
decline to allow for the use of non-written notifications (such as
recorded telephone messages) because we believe that such notifications
would be difficult for us to monitor and for beneficiaries to retrieve
for future reference. We will provide additional information regarding
permissible methods of notification in guidance, which we will issue
prior to the July 1, 2019 effective date.
Comment: Many commenters did not support CMS' proposal to require
ACO participants to disseminate the beneficiary notice at the point of
care during a beneficiary's first primary care visit of the performance
year and provided alternatives to reduce potential administrative and
operational burdens. A few commenters suggested that any ACO provider/
supplier should be able to disseminate the notice on the beneficiary's
first service visit of the year. Some commenters believed that CMS
should instead allow ACOs to provide the notice to beneficiaries at any
point during a performance year, and not specifically at a
beneficiary's first primary care service visit of the performance year.
A few commenters stated that there should not be any restrictions on
when the notification must be provided to beneficiaries. Some
commenters provided suggestions related to the timing of the notice and
coordination across CMS programs. For example, one commenter
recommended that beneficiary notifications be aligned between the
Shared Savings Program and the Next Generation ACO Model.
Response: Based on the feedback we received from commenters and as
previously discussed, we will require an ACO or its ACO participants to
disseminate the beneficiary notification at a beneficiary's first
primary care service visit of the performance year or at some point
earlier in the performance year. In this way, we hope to balance the
requested flexibility from ACOs and
[[Page 67996]]
ACO participants with the need to provide useful and important
information to beneficiaries.
In addition, we note that there are substantial differences between
the beneficiary notification requirements for the Shared Savings
Program, which is a permanent program established under section 1899 of
the Act, and the Next Generation ACO Model, which is being tested by
the Innovation Center under section 1115A of the Act. We plan, however,
to leverage lessons learned and, where possible, align the
notifications as we develop the Shared Savings Program beneficiary
notification templates.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about the content of the
beneficiary notice and whether the information contained in the notice
would be accessible to beneficiaries. Many commenters suggested that
CMS consider beneficiaries' perspective of the notification and
simplify the language in the template notice. Several commenters
suggested that we work with stakeholders and beneficiary focus groups
on developing the notice and determining the best method for
dissemination. Some of these commenters suggested that no new or
revised notifications should be implemented without input from these
groups.
Several commenters stated that ACOs should be allowed to develop
the notification language on their own based on guidance from CMS.
These commenters believe that allowing ACOs to develop the notification
language would help ensure that the notifications account for the
culture of the ACO's region and allow ACOs and ACO participants to
engage beneficiaries in a more meaningful way.
Several commenters believe that our proposed changes to the content
of the beneficiary notice would cause tremendous beneficiary confusion.
A number of commenters opined that ACOs would need to dedicate staff to
address beneficiary questions regarding the notifications. One
commenter stated that, based on its experience, our previous
beneficiary notification requirements (which required that an ACO
provide such notification at the point of care) added ten minutes per
visit so that providers or staff could explain the template notice to
beneficiaries. The commenter also criticized the content of our
existing template notice, stating that it is not beneficiary friendly
nor written at an appropriate literacy level. The commenter stated its
belief that the template notice content causes beneficiaries to become
concerned that the government has their data and, as a result, opt-out
of data sharing, which limits ACOs from receiving data that would help
them coordinate beneficiary care. In addition, a few commenters stated
that when we previously instituted beneficiary notice requirements that
required notice at the point of care, many beneficiaries were confused
and expressed fear that their benefits and/or network would be changed,
believed the beneficiary notice was a ``Medicare, Social Security and
Internal Revenue scam.'' A few commenters stated that some
beneficiaries believed that the data-sharing notification was an
attempt by the ACO to steal their identities. These commenters also
stated that many ACOs had to reassign staff members from clinical
duties to answering beneficiary questions about the notifications.
Several commenters expressed their belief that a comprehensive
written notice furnished at the time of a planned primary care visit is
likely to overwhelm beneficiaries with information about topics that
are only tangentially related to that visit, which would impair
clinical efficiency and experience of care for that visit. These
commenters also expressed that it is unlikely that the information
would be retained or retrieved by beneficiaries for later review. One
commenter asserted that the notification should provide clear
information about ACO activities that have a tangible impact on care
experience including care coordination, beneficiary incentive programs,
and the SNF 3-day rule waiver. Finally, a few commenters suggested
keeping the notice regarding voluntary alignment separate from all
other beneficiary notifications.
Response: We appreciates commenters' concerns that the beneficiary
notification may cause confusion among beneficiaries. We plan to work
with our internal partners to conduct beneficiary focus groups to
ensure that the content of the template notice is written in plain
language and is easy for beneficiaries to understand. We will also
consider working with focus groups in the future to include information
regarding an ACO's use of a SNF 3-day rule waiver and other benefit
enhancements. We believe that soliciting beneficiary input during
development of the template and testing the template will mitigate
concerns over the content of the notice.
In addition, we believe that consolidating the general Shared
Savings Program notices to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries,
including the notification regarding voluntary alignment, into a single
template will assist ACO participants in informing beneficiaries about
their coordination of care. We invite ACO input through established
modes of communication with CMS on any templates that we develop and
intend to take such comments into consideration during any future
revisions of the templates.
We appreciate that some commenters would like to develop the
notification language on their own based on guidance from CMS, however,
as stated above, we believe that using template language is important
to reduce operational burden and to ensure that beneficiaries receive
consistent information regarding the program.
Further, we note that the policy we are finalizing will allow ACOs
to choose whether to furnish the notifications (directly or through
their ACO participants) prior to or at a beneficiary's first primary
care visit of the performance year. This additional flexibility
addresses commenter concerns that beneficiaries could be overwhelmed by
receiving the notifications during the first primary care visit and
that furnishing the notice during such visit would impair clinical
efficiency and experience of care.
Finally, we will ensure that the notices comply with any applicable
Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 508
requires Federal agencies to ensure that people with disabilities have
comparable access to and use of electronic information technology.
Section 504 requires, among other things, that Federal agencies and
recipients of Federal financial assistance provide individuals with
disabilities with appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to ensure
effective communication.
Final Action: After considering the comments received, we are
finalizing with modification our revisions at Sec. 425.312 regarding
beneficiary notifications as follows:
We are finalizing Sec. 425.312(a)(1) to state that an
ACO shall ensure that Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries are
notified about all of the following: (1) That each ACO participant
and its ACO providers/suppliers are participating in the Shared
Savings Program; (2) the beneficiary's opportunity to decline claims
data sharing under Sec. 425.708; and (3) beginning July 1, 2019,
the beneficiary's ability to, and the process by which, he or she
may identify or change identification of the individual he or she
designated for purposes of voluntary alignment (as described in
Sec. 425.402(e)). Such notification must be carried out through all
of the following methods: (1) By an ACO participant posting signs in
its facilities and, in settings in which beneficiaries receive
primary care services, making standardized
[[Page 67997]]
written notices available upon request; and (2) during the
performance year beginning on July 1, 2019 and each subsequent
performance year, by an ACO or ACO participant providing each
beneficiary with a standardized written notice prior to or at the
first primary care visit of the performance year in the form and
manner specified by CMS.
We are finalizing Sec. 425.312(b)(1) to state that,
beginning July 1, 2019, an ACO that operates a beneficiary incentive
program under Sec. 425.304(c) shall ensure that the ACO or its ACO
participants notify assigned beneficiaries of the availability of
the beneficiary incentive program, including a description of the
qualifying services for which an assigned beneficiary is eligible to
receive an incentive payment (as described in Sec. 425.304(c)). We
are finalizing Sec. 425.312(b)(2) to state that notification of
such information must be carried out by an ACO or ACO participant
during each relevant performance year by providing each assigned
beneficiary with a standardized written notice prior to or at the
first primary care visit of the performance year in the form and
manner specified by CMS.
b. Beneficiary Opt-In Based Assignment Methodology
In the November 2011 final rule establishing the Shared Savings
Program (76 FR 67865), we discussed comments that we had received in
response to our proposed assignment methodology suggesting alternative
beneficiary assignment methodologies in order to promote beneficiary
free choice. For example, some commenters suggested that a beneficiary
should be assigned to an ACO only if the beneficiary ``opted-in'' or
enrolled in the ACO. We did not adopt an opt-in or enrollment
requirement for several reasons, including our belief that such a
prospective opt-in approach that allows beneficiaries to voluntarily
elect to be assigned to an ACO would completely sever the connection
between assignment and actual utilization of primary care services. A
patient could choose to be assigned to an ACO from which he or she had
received very few or no primary care services at all. However, more
recently, some stakeholders have suggested that we reconsider whether
it might be feasible to incorporate a beneficiary ``opt-in''
methodology under the Shared Savings Program. These stakeholders
believe that under the current beneficiary assignment methodology, it
can be difficult for an ACO to effectively manage a beneficiary's care
when there is little or no incentive or requirement for the beneficiary
to cooperate with the patient management practices of the ACO, such as
making recommended lifestyle changes or taking medications as
prescribed. The stakeholders noted that in some cases, an assigned
beneficiary may receive relatively few primary care services from ACO
professionals in the ACO and the beneficiary may be unaware that he or
she has been assigned to the ACO. These stakeholders suggested we
consider an alternative assignment methodology under which a
beneficiary would be assigned to an ACO if the beneficiary ``opted-in''
to the ACO in order to reduce the reliance on the existing assignment
methodology under subpart E and as a way to make the assignment
methodology more patient-centered, and strengthen the engagement of
beneficiaries in their health care. These stakeholders believe that
using such an approach to assignment could empower beneficiaries to
become better engaged and empowered in their health care decisions.
Although arguably beneficiaries ``opt-in'' to assignment to an ACO
under the existing claims-based assignment methodology in the sense
that claims-based assignment is based on each beneficiary's exercise of
free choice in seeking primary care services from ACO providers/
suppliers, in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41876) we explained
our belief that incorporating an opt-in based assignment methodology,
and de-emphasizing the claims-based assignment methodology, could have
merit as a way to assign beneficiaries to ACOs. Therefore, we noted
that we are exploring options for developing an opt-in based assignment
methodology to further encourage and empower beneficiaries to become
better engaged and empowered in their health care decisions. This
approach to beneficiary assignment might also allow ACOs to better
target their efforts to manage and coordinate care for those
beneficiaries for whose care they will ultimately be held accountable.
As discussed in section II.V.2.b. of the November 2018 final rule (83
FR 59959 through 59964), we have recently implemented a voluntary
alignment process, which is an electronic process that allows
beneficiaries to designate a primary clinician as responsible for
coordinating their overall care. If a beneficiary designates an ACO
professional as responsible for their overall care and the requirements
for assignment under Sec. 425.402(e) are met, the beneficiary will be
prospectively assigned to that ACO. For 2018, the first year in which
beneficiaries could be assigned to an ACO based on their designation of
a primary clinician in the ACO as responsible for coordinating their
care, 4,314 beneficiaries voluntarily aligned to 339 ACOs, and 338
beneficiaries were assigned to an ACO based solely on their voluntary
alignment. Ninety-two percent of the beneficiaries who voluntarily
aligned were already assigned to the same ACO under the claims-based
assignment algorithm.
Voluntary alignment is based upon the relationship between the
beneficiary and a single practitioner in the ACO. In contrast, as we
described in the August 2018 proposed rule, an opt-in based assignment
methodology would be based on an affirmative recognition of the
relationship between the beneficiary and the ACO, itself. Under an opt-
in based assignment methodology, a beneficiary would be assigned to an
ACO if the beneficiary opted into assignment to the ACO. Therefore,
under an opt-in approach, ACOs might have a stronger economic incentive
to compete against other ACOs and healthcare providers not
participating in an ACO because to the extent the ACO is able to
increase quality and reduce expenditures for duplicative and other
unnecessary care, it could attract a greater number of beneficiaries to
opt-in to assignment the ACO. There are a number of policy and
operational issues, including the issues previously identified in the
November 2011 final rule that would need to be addressed in order to
implement an opt-in based methodology to assign beneficiaries to ACOs.
These issues include the process under which beneficiaries could opt-in
to assignment to an ACO, ACO marketing guidelines, beneficiary
communications, system infrastructure to communicate beneficiary opt-
ins, and how to implement an opt-in based assignment methodology that
responds to stakeholder requests while conforming with existing
statutory and program requirements under the Shared Savings Program. We
discussed these issues in Section II.C.3.b of the August 2018 proposed
rule.
As we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule, we believe under
an opt-in based assignment methodology, it would be important for ACOs
to manage notifying beneficiaries, collecting beneficiary opt-in data,
and reporting the opt-in data to CMS. On an annual basis, ACOs would
notify their beneficiary population about their participation in the
Shared Savings Program and provide the beneficiaries a window during
which time they could notify the ACO of their decision to opt-in and be
assigned to the ACO, or to withdraw their opt-in to the ACO. Opting-in
to a Shared Savings Program ACO could be similar to enrolling in a MA
plan. MA election periods define when an individual may enroll or
[[Page 67998]]
disenroll from a MA plan. An individual (or his/her legal
representative) must complete an enrollment request (using an
enrollment form approved by CMS, an online application mechanism, or
through a telephone enrollment) to enroll in a MA plan and submit the
request to the MA plan during a valid enrollment period. MA plans are
required by 42 CFR 422.60 to submit a beneficiary's enrollment
information to CMS within the timeframes specified by CMS, using a
standard IT transaction system. Subsequently, CMS validates the
beneficiary's eligibility, at which point the MA plan must meet the
remainder of its enrollment-related processing requirements (for
example, sending a notice to the beneficiary of the acceptance or
rejection of the enrollment within the timeframes specified by CMS).
Procedures have been established for disenrolling from a MA plan during
MA election periods. (For additional details about the enrollment
process under MA, see the CMS website at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Eligibility-and-Enrollment/MedicareMangCareEligEnrol/index.html, and
the Medicare Managed Care Manual, chapter 2, section 40 at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Eligibility-and-Enrollment/MedicareMangCareEligEnrol/Downloads/CY_2018_MA_Enrollment_and_Disenrollment_Guidance_6-15-17.pdf).
Because opting-in or withdrawing an opt-in to assignment to a
Shared Savings Program ACO could be similar to enrolling or
disenrolling in a MA plan, we would need to establish the ACO opt-in
process and timing in a way to avoid beneficiary confusion as to the
differences between the Shared Savings Program and MA, and whether the
beneficiary is opting-in to assignment to an ACO or enrolling in a MA
plan. We would also need to determine how frequently beneficiaries
would be able to opt-in or withdraw an opt-in to an ACO, and whether
there should be limits on the ability to change an opt-in after the end
of the opt-in window, in order to reduce possible beneficiary
assignment ``churn''. We noted that beneficiaries opting-in to
assignment to an ACO would still retain the freedom to choose to
receive care from any Medicare-enrolled provider or supplier, including
providers and suppliers outside the ACO. The ACO would be responsible
for providing the list of beneficiaries who have opted-in to assignment
to the ACO, along with each beneficiary's Medicare number, address, and
certain other demographic information, to CMS in a form and manner
specified by CMS. After we receive this information from the ACO, we
would verify that each of the listed beneficiaries meets the
beneficiary eligibility criteria set forth in Sec. 425.401(a) before
finalizing the ACO's assigned beneficiary population for the applicable
performance year. To perform these important opt-in related functions,
ACOs might need to acquire new information technology systems, along
with additional support staff, to track, monitor and transmit opt-in
data to CMS, including effective dates for beneficiaries who opt-in or
withdraw an opt-in to the ACO. Furthermore, changes in an ACO's
composition of ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers could
affect a beneficiary's interest in maintaining his or her alignment
with the ACO through an opt-in approach. As a result, we explained that
we believe it would also be critical for an ACO participating under
opt-in based assignment to inform beneficiaries of their option to
withdraw their opt-in to the ACO, generally, and specifically, in the
event that an ACO participant or ACO provider/supplier, from which the
beneficiary has received primary care services is no longer
participating in the ACO.
MA has marketing guidelines and requirements that apply to
enrollment activities to prevent selective marketing or discrimination
based on health status. (See 42 CFR 422.2260 through 422.2276 and
section 30.4 of the Medicare Marketing Guidelines located at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Health-Plans/ManagedCareMarketing/FinalPartCMarketingGuidelines.html.) We explained that if we were to
adopt an opt-in process for the Shared Savings Program, we would impose
similar requirements to ensure ACOs are providing complete and accurate
information to beneficiaries to inform their decision-making regarding
opting-in to assignment to an ACO, and not selectively marketing or
discriminating based on health status or otherwise improperly
influencing beneficiary choice. Additionally, ACOs would be required to
establish a method for tracking the beneficiaries they have notified
regarding the opportunity to opt-in to assignment to the ACO, and the
responses received. Under Sec. 425.314, ACOs agree and must require
their ACO participants, ACO providers/suppliers, and other individuals
or entities performing functions or services related to ACO activities
to agree that CMS has the right to audit, inspect, investigate, and
evaluate records and other evidence that pertain to the ACO's
compliance with the requirements of the Shared Savings Program. We
noted that we believe this provision would authorize CMS to conduct
oversight regarding ACOs' records documenting the beneficiaries who
received such a notification and the beneficiary responses.
As we stated in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41877 and
41878), we are also considering how we would implement an opt-in based
assignment methodology that addresses stakeholder requests, while
conforming to existing program requirements. First, the requirement at
section 1899(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that an ACO have at least 5,000
assigned beneficiaries, would continue to apply. Thus, under an opt-in
based assignment methodology, an ACO still would be required to have at
least 5,000 FFS beneficiaries, who meet our beneficiary eligibility
criteria, assigned to the ACO at the time of application and for the
entirety of the ACO's agreement period. We indicated that we are
concerned that using an opt-in based assignment methodology as the sole
basis for assigning beneficiaries to an ACO could make it difficult for
many ACOs to meet the 5,000 assigned beneficiary requirement under
section 1899(b)(2)(D) of the Act. In particular, we noted that we were
considering how an opt-in based assignment methodology would be
implemented for new ACOs that have applied to the Shared Savings
Program, but have not yet been approved by CMS to participate in the
program. It could be difficult for a new ACO to achieve 5,000
beneficiary opt-ins prior to the start of its first performance year
under the program, as required by the statute in order to be eligible
for the program. It could also be difficult for certain established
ACOs, such as ACOs located in rural areas, to achieve and maintain
5,000 beneficiary opt-ins. Smaller assigned beneficiary populations
would also significantly increase the minimum savings rate and minimum
loss rate (MSR and MLR) thresholds used to determine eligibility for
shared savings and accountability for shared losses when these rates
are based on the size of the ACO's assigned population as described in
section II.A.6.b. of this final rule. Smaller assigned beneficiary
populations would also be a potential concern if ACOs and their ACO
participants were to target care management to a small subset of
patients at the expense of a more comprehensive transformation of care
delivery with benefits that would have otherwise extended to a wider
mix of
[[Page 67999]]
patients regardless of whether they are assigned to the ACO.
Second, under an opt-in assignment approach, we could allow
beneficiaries to opt-in before they have received a primary care
service from a physician in the ACO, or any service from an ACO
provider/supplier. This would be similar to the situation that can
sometimes occur under MA, where a beneficiary enrolls in a MA plan
without having received services from any of the plan's providers. That
means a beneficiary could be assigned to an ACO based solely on his or
her opting-in to the ACO, and the ACO would be accountable for the
total cost and quality of care provided to the opted-in beneficiary,
including care from providers/suppliers that are not participating in
the ACO. Section 1899(c) of the Act requires that beneficiaries be
assigned to an ACO based on their use of primary care services
furnished by physicians in the ACO, or beginning January 1, 2019,
services provided in FQHCs/RHCs. In the August 2018 proposed rule, we
noted that in order to meet this requirement under an opt-in based
assignment methodology, we were considering whether we would need to
continue to require that a beneficiary receive at least one primary
care service from an ACO professional in the ACO who is a primary care
physician or a physician with a specialty used in assignment (similar
to our current requirement under Sec. 425.402(b)(1)), in order for the
beneficiary to be eligible to opt-in to assignment to the ACO.
Third, we explained that we were considering whether any changes
would need to be made to our methodology for establishing an ACO's
historical benchmark if we were to implement an opt-in based assignment
methodology. Under the current assignment methodology used in the
Shared Savings Program, we assign beneficiaries to ACOs for a
performance year based upon either voluntary alignment or the claims-
based assignment methodology. Because the vast majority of
beneficiaries are assigned using the claims-based assignment
methodology, we are able to use the same claims-based assignment
methodology to assign beneficiaries for purposes of either a
performance year or a benchmark year. The expenditures of the
beneficiaries assigned to the ACO for a benchmark year are then used in
the determination of the benchmark. However, the same approach would
not be possible under an assignment methodology based solely on a
beneficiary opt-in approach. If we were to adopt an entirely opt-in
based assignment methodology, we would need to consider if any changes
would need to be made to our methodology for establishing an ACO's
historical benchmark to address selection bias and/or variation in
expenditures because beneficiaries would not have opted-in to
assignment to the ACO during the 3 prior years included in the
historical benchmark under Sec. 425.602, Sec. 425.603, or proposed
new Sec. 425.601. Thus, under an entirely opt-in based assignment
methodology there could be a large disconnect between the beneficiaries
who have opted-in to assignment to the ACO for a performance year and
the beneficiaries who are assigned to the ACO on the basis of claims
for the historical benchmark years. An adjustment to the benchmark
would be necessary to address these discrepancies. Alternatively, if we
were to adopt a methodology under which we use expenditures from the 3
historical benchmark years only for beneficiaries who have opted-in to
assignment to the ACO in the applicable performance year, it could
create an imbalance because the expenditures for the years that
comprise the historical benchmark would not include expenditures for
decedents because beneficiaries necessarily would have survived through
the baseline period in order to opt-in for the given performance year.
A similar approach was initially applied in the Pioneer ACO Model, but
it required complex adjustments to ACOs' benchmarks to account for
significantly lower spending in historical base years for assigned
beneficiaries, who necessarily survived for the one or more years
between the given base year and the applicable performance year in
which they were assigned to the ACO. It would likely be even more
difficult and complex to consistently and accurately adjust the
benchmark in the context of our proposal to change to 5 year agreement
periods (or a 6 year agreement period for agreement periods starting on
July 1, 2019) because the historical benchmarks would eventually rely
on an even smaller subset of base year claims available for
beneficiaries who were enrolled in both Medicare Parts A and B during
the base year and have survived long enough to cover the up to 7-year
gap between the historical base year and the performance year for which
they have opted-in to assignment to the ACO.
In light of these issues, we stated that we were considering
implementing an opt-in based assignment methodology that would address
stakeholder requests that we incorporate such an approach to make the
assignment methodology more patient-centered, while also addressing
statutory requirements and other Shared Savings Program requirements.
Specifically, we explained our belief that it may be feasible to
incorporate an opt-in based assignment methodology into the Shared
Savings Program in the following manner. We would allow, but not
require, ACOs to elect an opt-in based assignment methodology. Under
this approach, at the time of application to enter or renew
participation in the Shared Savings Program, an ACO could elect an opt-
in based assignment methodology that would apply for the length of the
agreement period. Under this approach, we would use the assignment
methodology under subpart E of the regulations, including the
provisions at Sec. Sec. 425.400, 425.401, 425.402 and 425.404 (herein
referred to as the ``existing assignment methodology'' which would be
comprised of a claims-based assignment methodology and voluntary
alignment), to determine whether an ACO applicant meets the initial
requirement under section 1899(b)(2)(D) of the Act to be eligible to
participate in the program. We would use this approach because the ACO
applicant would not be able to actively seek Medicare beneficiary opt-
ins until the next opt-in window. That is, we would continue to
determine an ACO's eligibility to participate in the program under the
requirement that an ACO have at least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries
using the program's existing assignment methodology. Therefore, an ACO
that elects to participate under opt-in based assignment could be
eligible to enter an agreement period under the program if we determine
that it has at least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries in each of the 3
years prior to the start of the ACO's agreement period, based on the
claims-based assignment methodology and voluntarily aligned
beneficiaries.
If an ACO chooses not to elect the opt-in based assignment
methodology during the application or renewal process, then
beneficiaries would continue to be assigned to the ACO based on the
existing assignment methodology (claims-based assignment with voluntary
alignment). As an alternative to allowing ACOs to voluntarily elect
participation in an opt-in based assignment methodology we noted that
we were also considering discontinuing the existing assignment
methodology and applying an opt-in based assignment methodology
program-wide (described herein as a hybrid assignment approach which
includes beneficiary opt-in, modified
[[Page 68000]]
claims-based assignment, and voluntary alignment). As described in the
August 2018 proposed rule, ACOs could face operational challenges in
implementing opt-in based assignment, and this approach to assignment
could affect the size and composition of the ACO's assigned population,
specifically to narrow the populations served by ACO. In light of these
factors, we stated that we believe it would be important to gain
experience with opt-in based assignment as a voluntary participation
option before modifying the program to allow only this participation
option.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41879 through 41881), we
described a hybrid approach under which, for ACOs electing to
participate under an opt-in based assignment methodology, we would
assign beneficiaries to the ACO based on beneficiary opt-ins,
supplemented by voluntary alignment and a modified claims-based
methodology. Notwithstanding the assignment methodology under Sec.
425.402(b), under this hybrid approach, a beneficiary would be
prospectively assigned to an ACO that has elected the opt-in based
assignment methodology if the beneficiary opted in to assignment to the
ACO or voluntarily aligned with the ACO by designating an ACO
professional as responsible for their overall care. If a beneficiary
was not prospectively assigned to such an ACO based on either
beneficiary opt-in or voluntary alignment, then the beneficiary would
be assigned to such ACO only if the beneficiary received the plurality
of his or her primary care services from the ACO and received at least
seven primary care services from one or more ACO professionals in the
ACO during the applicable assignment window. If a beneficiary did not
receive at least seven primary care services from one or more ACO
professionals in the ACO during the applicable assignment window, then
the beneficiary would not be assigned to the ACO on the basis of claims
even if the beneficiary received the plurality of their primary care
services from the ACO. We noted that this threshold of seven primary
care services would be consistent with the threshold established by an
integrated healthcare system in a prior demonstration that targeted
intervention on chronic care, high risk patients in need of better
coordinated care due to their frequent utilization of health care
services. A threshold for assignment of seven primary care services
would mean that up to 25 percent of an ACO's beneficiaries who would
have been assigned to the ACO under the existing assignment methodology
under Sec. 425.402(b) could continue to be assigned to the ACO based
on claims. We explained that we believed it could be appropriate to
establish a minimum threshold of seven primary care services for
assigning beneficiaries to ACOs electing an opt-in based assignment
methodology because it would enable such ACOs to focus their care
coordination activities on beneficiaries who have either opted-in to
assignment to the ACO or voluntarily aligned with the ACO, or who are
receiving a high number of primary care services from ACO professionals
and may have complex conditions requiring care coordination. We sought
comment on whether to use a higher or lower minimum threshold for
determining beneficiaries assigned to the ACO under a modified claims-
based assignment approach.
Under this hybrid approach to assignment, we would allow the ACO a
choice of claims-based beneficiary assignment methodology as discussed
in section II.A.4.c. of this final rule. Therefore, ACOs that elect to
participate under opt-in based assignment for their agreement period
would also have the opportunity to elect either prospective or
preliminary prospective claims-based assignment prior to the start of
their agreement period, and to elect to change this choice of
assignment methodology annually.
More generally, we stated that we believe this hybrid assignment
methodology, which would incorporate claims-based and opt-in based
assignment methods, as well as voluntary alignment, could be preferable
to an opt-in only approach. A hybrid assignment methodology would
increase the number of beneficiaries for whom the ACO would be
accountable for quality and cost of care delivery and thereby provide
stronger statistical confidence for shared savings or shared losses
calculations and provide a stronger incentive for ACOs and their ACO
participants and ACO providers/suppliers to improve care delivery for
every FFS beneficiary rather than focusing only on beneficiaries who
happen to have opted-in to assignment to the ACO.
For ACOs that enter an agreement period in the Shared Savings
Program under an opt-in based assignment methodology, we would allow
for a special election period during the first calendar year quarter of
the ACO's first performance year for beneficiaries to opt-in to
assignment to the ACO. For each subsequent performance year of an ACO's
agreement period, the opt-in period would span the first three calendar
year quarters (January through September) of the prior performance
year. Beneficiaries that opt-in, and are determined eligible for
assignment to the ACO, would be prospectively assigned to the ACO for
the following performance year. Under this approach, there would be no
floor or minimum number of opt-in beneficiaries required. Rather, we
would consider whether, in total, the ACO's assigned beneficiary
population (comprised of beneficiaries who opt-in, beneficiaries
assigned under the modified claims-based assignment approach, and
beneficiaries who have voluntarily aligned) meets the minimum
population size of 5,000 assigned beneficiaries each performance year
to comply with the requirements for continued participation in the
program. To illustrate this hybrid assignment approach in determining
performance year assignment: If an ACO has 2,500 beneficiaries assigned
under the modified claims-based assignment approach who have not
otherwise opted-in to assignment to the ACO, and 50 voluntarily aligned
beneficiaries who have not otherwise opted-in to assignment to the ACO,
then the ACO would be required to have at least 2,450 beneficiaries who
have opted-in to assignment to remain in compliance with the program
eligibility requirement to have at least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries.
Consistent with current program policy, ACOs electing the opt-in
based assignment methodology with a performance year assigned
population below the 5,000-minimum may be subject to the pre-
termination actions in Sec. 425.216 and termination of their
participation agreement under Sec. 425.218. Under the proposals for
modifying the MSR/MLR to address small population sizes described in
section II.A.6.b.(3). of this final rule, if an ACO that elects an opt-
in based assignment methodology has an assigned population below 5,000
beneficiaries, the ACO's MSR/MLR would be set at a level consistent
with the number of assigned beneficiaries to provide assurance that
shared savings and shared losses represent meaningful changes in
expenditures rather than normal variation.
As an alternative approach, we also considered requiring ACOs that
have elected an opt-in based assignment methodology to maintain at
least a minimum number of opt-in beneficiaries assigned in each
performance year of its agreement period. We explained our belief that
any minimum population requirement should be proportional to the size
of ACO's population, to recognize differences in the population sizes
of
[[Page 68001]]
ACOs across the program. We also considered whether we should require
incremental increases in the size of the ACO's opt-in assigned
population over the course of the ACO's agreement period, recognizing
that it may take time for ACOs to implement the opt-in approach and for
beneficiaries to opt-in. Another factor we considered is the
possibility that the size of an ACO's population, and therefore the
proportion of opt-in beneficiaries, could be affected by ACO
participant list changes, and changes in the ACO providers/suppliers
billing through ACO participant TINs, which could affect claims-based
assignment, and the size of the ACO's voluntarily aligned population.
Changes in the size of the ACO's claims-based assigned and voluntarily
aligned populations could cause the ACO to fall out of compliance with
a required proportion of opt-in assigned beneficiaries, even if there
has been no reduction in the number of opt-in assigned beneficiaries.
We anticipated that under opt-in based assignment, we would not
establish restrictions on the geographic locations of the ACOs from
which a beneficiary could select. This would be consistent with the
program's voluntary alignment process, under which a beneficiary could
choose to designate a primary clinician as being responsible for his or
her care even if this clinician is geographically distant from the
beneficiary's place of residence. Also, currently under the program's
existing claims-based assignment methodology, beneficiaries who receive
care in different parts of the country during the assignment window can
be assigned to an ACO that is geographically distant from the
beneficiary's place of residence. This approach also recognizes that a
beneficiary could be assigned to a geographically distant ACO as a
result of his or her individual circumstances, such as a beneficiary's
change in place of residence, the beneficiary spending time in and
receiving care in different parts of the country during the year
(sometimes referred to as being a ``snowbird''), or the beneficiary
receiving care from a tertiary care facility that is geographically
distant from his or her home. Further, we noted that this approach is
in line with the expanded telehealth policies discussed in section
II.B.2.b. of this final rule under which certain geographic and other
restrictions would be removed. We welcomed comment on whether to
establish geographic limitations on opt-in based assignment such that a
beneficiary's choice of ACOs for opt-in would be limited to ACOs
located near the beneficiary's place of residence, or where the
beneficiary receives his or her care, or a combination of both.
When considering the options for incorporating an opt-in based
assignment methodology, we considered if such a change in assignment
methodology would also require changes to the proposed benchmarking
methodology under Sec. 425.601. A hybrid assignment approach could
potentially require modifications to the benchmarking methodology to
account for factors such as: Differences in beneficiary
characteristics, including health status, between beneficiaries who may
be amenable to opting-in to assignment to an ACO, beneficiaries who
voluntarily align, and beneficiaries assigned under a modified claims-
based assignment methodology who must have received at least seven
primary care services from the ACO; differences between the existing
claims-based assignment methodology and the alternative claims-based
approach under which a minimum of seven primary care services would be
required for assignment; and discrepancies caused by the use of the
existing claims-based assignment methodology to perform assignment for
historical benchmark years and the use of a hybrid assignment
methodology for performance years. We explained that, for simplicity,
we prefer an approach that would use, to the greatest extent possible,
the program's benchmarking methodology, as proposed to be modified as
discussed in section II.D. of this final rule. This would allow us to
more rapidly implement an opt-in based assignment approach, and may be
easier to understand for ACOs and other program stakeholders
experienced with the program's benchmarking methodology. We considered
the following approach to establishing and adjusting the historical
benchmark for ACOs that elect an opt-in based assignment methodology.
As explained in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41880 through
41882), in establishing the historical benchmark for ACOs electing an
opt-in based beneficiary assignment methodology, we would follow the
benchmarking approach described in the provisions of the proposed new
regulation at Sec. 425.601. In particular, we would continue to
determine benchmark year assignment based on the population of
beneficiaries that would have been assigned to the ACO under the
program's existing assignment methodology in each of the 3 most recent
years prior to the start of the ACO's agreement period. However, we
would take a different approach to annually risk adjusting the
historical benchmark expenditures than the one we had proposed in
Section II.D of the proposed rule and in the proposed provisions at
Sec. Sec. 425.605(a)(1) and 425.610(a)(2).
In risk adjusting the historical benchmark for each performance
year, we would maintain the current approach of categorizing
beneficiaries by Medicare enrollment type; however, we would further
stratify the benchmark year 3 and performance year assigned populations
into groups that we anticipate would have comparable expenditures and
risk score trends. That is, we would further stratify the performance
year population into two categories: (1) Beneficiaries who are assigned
using the modified claims-based assignment methodology and must have
received seven or more primary care services from ACO professionals and
who have not also opted-in to assignment to the ACO; and (2)
beneficiaries who opt-in and beneficiaries who voluntarily align. A
beneficiary who has opted-in to assignment to the ACO would continue to
be stratified in the opted in population throughout the agreement
period regardless of whether the beneficiary would have been assigned
using the modified claims-based assignment methodology because the
beneficiary received seven or more primary care services from the ACO.
We would also further stratify the BY3 population, determined using
the existing assignment methodology, into two categories: (1)
Beneficiaries who received seven or more primary care services from the
ACO; and (2) beneficiaries who received six or fewer primary care
services from the ACO.
We explained that we anticipate that beneficiaries who opt-in would
likely be a subset of beneficiaries who would have been assigned under
the existing claims-based assignment methodology. As previously
described, 92 percent of voluntarily aligned beneficiaries were already
assigned to the same ACO using the existing claims-based assignment
methodology. Further, based on our experience with the program, about
75 percent of ACOs' assigned beneficiaries receive six or fewer primary
care service visits annually. Similar to the trend we have observed
with voluntarily aligned beneficiaries, we believe the opt-in
beneficiaries would tend to resemble in health status and acuity a
subset of the ACO's typical claims-based assigned population; that is,
we anticipate opt-in beneficiaries, as with voluntarily aligned
beneficiaries, would resemble the population of beneficiaries assigned
[[Page 68002]]
in the benchmark year that received six or fewer primary care services.
We would determine ratios of risk scores for the comparable
populations of performance year and BY3 assigned beneficiaries. We
would calculate these risk ratios by comparing the risk scores for the
BY3 population with seven or more primary care services with the risk
scores for the performance year population with seven or more primary
care services who have not otherwise opted-in or voluntarily aligned.
We would also calculate risk ratios for the remaining beneficiary
population by comparing risk scores for the BY3 population with six or
fewer primary care services with the risk scores for the performance
year population of opt-in and voluntarily aligned beneficiaries. We
would use these ratios to risk adjust the historical benchmark
expenditures not only by Medicare enrollment type, but also by these
stratifications. That is, for each Medicare enrollment type, we would
apply risk ratios comparing the risk scores of the BY3 population with
seven or more primary care services and the risk scores of the
performance year population with seven or more primary care services to
adjust the historical benchmark expenditures for the population with
seven or more primary care services in the benchmark period. Similarly,
we would apply risk ratios comparing the risk scores of the BY3
population with six or fewer primary care services and the risk scores
of the performance year opt-in or voluntarily aligned population to
adjust the historical benchmark expenditures for the population with
six or fewer primary care services in the benchmark period. We presumed
this would be a reasonable approach based on our expectation that opt-
in beneficiaries will resemble the population of beneficiaries,
assigned under the existing claims-based assignment methodology, who
have 6 or fewer primary care services with the ACO annually. This
presumption was supported by the assumptions that ACOs may selectively
market opt-in to lower cost beneficiaries, and beneficiaries that
require less intensive and frequent care may be more inclined to opt-
in. However, since we lack experience with an opt-in based assignment
approach, we indicated that we would monitor the effects of this policy
to determine if it is effective in addressing the differences in
characteristics between the population assigned for purposes of
establishing the ACO's benchmark under the existing assignment
methodology and the population assigned for the performance year under
the hybrid assignment approach, and if further adjustments may be
warranted such as additional adjustments to the historical benchmark to
account for such differences.
In rebasing the ACO's benchmark, which occurs at the start of each
new agreement period, we would include in the benchmark year assigned
population beneficiaries who had opted in to the ACO in a prior
performance year that equates to a benchmark year for the ACO's new
agreement period. For example, if an ACO elected opt-in for a 5-year
agreement period beginning on January 1, 2020, and concluding on
December 31, 2024, and a beneficiary opted in and was assigned for
performance year 2023 and remained opted in and assigned for
performance year 2024, we would include this beneficiary in the
benchmark year assigned population for BY2 (2023) and BY3 (2024) when
we rebase the ACO for its next agreement period beginning January 1,
2025. We considered that the health status of an opt-in beneficiary may
continue to change over time as the beneficiary ages, which would be
accounted for in our use of full CMS-HCC risk scores in risk adjusting
the rebased historical benchmark. We considered approaches to further
adapt the rebasing methodology to account for the characteristics of
the ACO's opt-in beneficiaries, and the ACO's experience with
participating in an opt-in based assignment methodology.
We considered an approach under which we could determine the
assigned population for the ACO's rebased benchmark using the program's
existing assignment methodology and incorporate opt-in assigned
beneficiaries in the benchmark population. In risk adjusting the ACO's
rebased benchmark each performance year, we could use a stratification
approach similar to the approach previously described in this
discussion. That is we would stratify the BY3 population into two
categories: (1) Beneficiaries who received seven or more primary care
services from the ACO; and (2) beneficiaries who received six or fewer
primary care services from the ACO. We would categorize opt-in
beneficiaries, assigned in BY3, into either one of these categories
based on the number of primary care services they received from ACO
during BY3. We could continue to stratify the performance year
population assigned under the hybrid assignment methodology into two
categories: (1) Beneficiaries who are assigned using the modified
claims-based assignment methodology and must have received seven or
more primary care services from ACO professionals and who have not also
opted-in to assignment to the ACO; and (2) beneficiaries who opt-in and
beneficiaries who voluntarily align. We would apply risk ratios
comparing the risk scores of the BY3 population with seven or more
primary care services and the risk scores of the performance year
population with seven or more primary care services to adjust the
historical benchmark expenditures for the population with seven or more
primary care services in the benchmark period. Similarly, we would
apply risk ratios comparing the risk scores of the BY3 population with
six or fewer primary care services and the risk scores of the
performance year opt-in or voluntarily aligned population to adjust the
historical benchmark expenditures for the population with six or fewer
primary care services in the benchmark period.
An alternative approach to rebasing the benchmark for an ACO that
elected opt-in assignment in their most recent prior agreement period
and continues their participation in an opt-in based assignment
methodology in their new agreement period, would be to use the hybrid
assignment approach to determine benchmark year assignment. To risk
adjust the benchmark for each performance year we could then stratify
the BY3 and the performance year assigned populations into two
categories: (1) Beneficiaries assigned through the modified claims-
based assignment methodology who received seven or more primary care
services from the ACO; or (2) beneficiaries who opt-in and
beneficiaries who voluntarily align. This approach would move ACOs to
participation under a purely hybrid assignment approach since we would
no longer use the existing assignment methodology in establishing the
benchmark. However, this approach could result in smaller benchmark
year assigned populations compared to populations determined based on
the more inclusive, existing assignment methodology. In turn, this
approach could result in ACOs that were successful at opting-in
beneficiaries being ineligible to continue their participation in the
program under an opt-in assignment methodology because they do not meet
the program's eligibility requirement to have at least 5,000
beneficiaries assigned in each benchmark year.
As described in section II.D. of this final rule, as part of the
proposed changes to our benchmarking methodology, we proposed that
annual adjustments in prospective CMS-HCC risk scores would be subject
to a symmetrical cap of positive or negative 3 percent that would apply
for the
[[Page 68003]]
agreement period, such that the adjustment between BY3 and any
performance year in the agreement period would never be more than 3
percent in either direction. We explained that we were considering
whether a modified approach to applying these caps would be necessary
for ACOs that elect opt-in based assignment methodology. For example,
for the first performance year an opted-in beneficiary is assigned to
an ACO, we could allow for full upward or downward CMS-HCC risk
adjustment, thereby excluding these beneficiaries from the symmetrical
risk score caps. This would allow us to account for newly opted-in
beneficiaries' full CMS-HCC scores in risk adjusting the benchmark. In
each subsequent performance year, the opted-in beneficiaries remain
aligned to the ACO, we could use an asymmetrical approach to capping
increases and decreases in risk scores. We would cap increases in the
opt-in beneficiaries' CMS-HCC risk scores to guard against changes in
coding intensity, but we would apply no cap to decreases in their CMS-
HCC risk scores. That is, the risk scores for these opt-in
beneficiaries would be subject to the positive 3 percent cap, but not
the negative 3 percent cap. We believed this approach would safeguard
against ACOs trying to enroll healthy beneficiaries, who would likely
be less expensive than their benchmark population, in order to benefit
from having a limit on downward risk adjustment. Beneficiaries who have
not otherwise opted-in who are assigned to the ACO based on the
modified claims-based assignment methodology and those that voluntarily
align would be subject to the proposed symmetrical 3 percent cap. We
also noted that we do not apply caps to risk scores when we rebase an
ACO's historical benchmark, which allows the historical benchmark to
reflect the current health status of the beneficiary populations
assigned for the benchmark years.
As indicated in the alternatives considered section of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis at Section V.D. of the proposed rule, there
is limited information presently available to model the behavioral
response to an opt-in based assignment methodology, for example in
terms of ACOs' willingness to elect such an approach and beneficiaries'
willingness to opt-in. However, we noted that for some policies we can
draw upon our initial experience with implementing voluntary alignment.
As we stated in the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41882), we believe
the approach to adjusting benchmarks to address an opt-in based
assignment methodology that we described in the proposed rule, could
address our concerns about the comparability of benchmark and
performance year populations. We noted that if such a policy were to be
finalized we would monitor the impact of these adjustments on ACOs'
benchmarks, and we would also monitor to determine ACOs' and
beneficiaries' response to the opt-in based assignment participation
option, characteristics of opt-in beneficiaries and the ACOs they are
assigned to, and the cost and quality trends of opt-in beneficiaries to
determine if further development to the program's financial methodology
would be necessary to account for this approach.
We also anticipated that if we were to establish an opt-in based
assignment methodology, we would need to establish program integrity
requirements similar to the program integrity requirements with respect
to voluntary alignment at Sec. 425.402(e)(3). The ACO, ACO
participants, ACO providers/suppliers, ACO professionals, and other
individuals or entities performing functions and services related to
ACO activities would be prohibited from providing or offering gifts or
other remuneration to Medicare beneficiaries as inducements to
influence their decision to opt-in to assignment to the ACO. The ACO,
ACO participants, ACO providers/suppliers, ACO professionals, and other
individuals or entities performing functions and services related to
ACO activities would also be prohibited from directly or indirectly,
committing any act or omission, or adopting any policy that coerces or
otherwise influences a Medicare beneficiary's decision to opt-in to
assignment to an ACO. Offering anything of value to a Medicare
beneficiary as an inducement to influence the Medicare beneficiary's
decision to opt-in (or not opt-in) to assignment to the ACO would not
be considered to have a reasonable connection to the medical care of
the beneficiary, as required under the proposed provision at Sec.
425.304(b)(1).
Finally, we emphasized that, as is the case for all FFS
beneficiaries currently assigned to an ACO on the basis of claims or
voluntary alignment, under an opt-in based assignment methodology,
beneficiaries who opt-in to assignment to an ACO would retain their
right to seek care from any Medicare-enrolled provider or supplier of
their choosing, including providers and suppliers outside the ACO.
We solicited comment on whether we should offer ACOs an opportunity
to voluntarily choose an alternative beneficiary assignment methodology
under which an ACO could elect to have beneficiaries assigned to the
ACO based on a beneficiary opt-in methodology supplemented by voluntary
alignment and a modified claims-based assignment methodology. We
welcomed comments as to whether it would be appropriate to establish a
minimum threshold number of primary care services, such as seven
primary care services, for purposes of using claims to assign
beneficiaries to ACOs electing an opt-in based assignment methodology
to enable these ACOs to focus their care coordination efforts on those
beneficiaries who have either opted-in to assignment to or voluntarily
aligned with the ACO, or who are receiving a high number of primary
care services from ACO professionals, and may have complex conditions
requiring a significant amount of care coordination. We sought comment
on whether this minimum threshold for use in determining modified
claims-based assignment should be set at a higher or lower. We also
welcomed comments on an appropriate methodology for establishing and
adjusting an ACO's historical benchmark under an opt-in based
assignment methodology. Further, we sought comment on how to treat opt-
in beneficiaries when rebasing the historical benchmark for renewing
ACOs. Additionally, we welcomed comments on any other considerations
that might be relevant to adopting a methodology under which
beneficiaries may opt-in to assignment to an ACO, including ways to
minimize burden on beneficiaries, ACOs, ACO participants, and ACO
providers/suppliers and avoid beneficiary confusion.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41882 and 41883), we
explained that we envisioned that if we were to incorporate such an
opt-in based assignment methodology, the election by ACOs would be
entirely voluntary. ACOs that did not elect this beneficiary assignment
option would continue to have their beneficiaries assigned using the
existing claims-based assignment methodology with voluntary alignment
under Sec. 425.402. However, we also sought comment on whether we
should discontinue the existing assignment methodology under subpart E
and instead assign beneficiaries to all ACOs using a hybrid assignment
methodology, which would incorporate opt-in based assignment and the
modified claims-based assignment methodology, as well as voluntary
alignment. Under such an approach, the use of a modified benchmarking
methodology could help
[[Page 68004]]
to ensure that an appropriate weight would be placed on the risk-
adjusted expenditures of the ACO's opt-in population as this population
increases in size.
Comment: A majority of commenters did not support the idea of an
opt-in based assignment methodology. Many commenters preferred that CMS
maintain the existing claims-based assignment methodology with
voluntary alignment and not replace it with an opt-in or a hybrid
assignment methodology. One commenter stated that, as described in the
proposed rule, the beneficiary opt-in would move the program away from
its fundamental purpose and that ACOs should focus on recruiting the
right doctors and other health care providers to improve the health of
their patients, not recruiting patients to opt-in to the ACO.
Another commenter expressed concerns about the small number of
beneficiaries that would opt into an ACO, stating that it is extremely
unlikely that many beneficiaries who were not already assigned through
claims or by designating a primary care provider would choose to opt
into an ACO. One commenter believed that because there is no connection
between opt-in enrollment and actual utilization of primary care
services, an opt-in based assignment methodology is not the answer to
stakeholder concerns about the current beneficiary assignment
methodology or changes in the assigned beneficiary population from year
to year. A few commenters expressed concerns that establishing an ACO's
benchmark under an opt-in methodology would become more complicated
(due to opt-in beneficiaries potentially having different expected cost
growth than the average beneficiary) and difficult (due to the 5,000
minimum beneficiary threshold requirement). One commenter expressed
concerns about the hybrid approach, stating that the seven-claim
threshold is high enough to fundamentally change the Shared Savings
Program, because the vast majority of potentially attributable ACO
beneficiaries are not high-risk and, therefore, may never need seven
primary care services in a given period of time. One commenter
suggested that beneficiary assignment would fall dramatically under an
opt-in assignment methodology and CMS would have to implement a much
higher shared savings rate in order to support the large ACO
investments that a beneficiary enrollment process would require.
Several commenters were concerned that an opt-in assignment
methodology could have significant operational impact on ACOs. One
commenter stated that if the opt-in assignment methodology involved
active outreach by providers, it would impose additional work streams
and resource use on practices. Another commenter stated that although
opt-in based enrollment is a valuable idea utilized by health plans,
many ACOs do not have the infrastructure, including staff, to operate
such a process. Another commenter stated that altering the assignment
methodology to require beneficiaries to actively elect an ACO would
create insurmountable administrative complexities and would be
confusing to beneficiaries. One commenter stated that the process is
likely to increase administrative burdens for ACOs, particularly those
which are made up of independent physicians. The commenter recommended
that, CMS should ensure that ACOs that do not have the resources
available to actively pursue beneficiary opt-in are not inadvertently
punished through additional changes to the claims-based assignment
methodology.
One commenter stated that beneficiary opt-in would effectively end
physician participation in the Shared Savings Program and that
physician practices, especially those that are unaffiliated with a
health system or a health plan, do not have the resources needed to
develop and implement the complex, continuous enrollment and reporting
processes described in the proposed rule. The commenter believed that a
requirement that beneficiaries opt-in to assignment to an ACO would
significantly increase the costs of administering and running an ACO,
skewing the cost-benefit analysis that many physician practices
consider before joining the program.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' feedback regarding our
considerations in relation to the possible development of an opt-in
based assignment methodology. These comments will help to inform any
future consideration of an opt-in based assignment methodology.
Comment: Several commenters supported CMS in exploring options for
developing a voluntary opt-in based assignment methodology to
complement the existing assignment methodology under subpart E. These
commenters suggested that such an approach may make the assignment
methodology more patient-centered and further encourage and empower
beneficiaries to become better engaged in their healthcare decisions.
Some commenters were supportive of an opt-in based assignment
methodology to support beneficiary engagement. These commenters
provided a variety of reasons for their support:
To give beneficiaries greater agency in directing their
care choices. Beneficiaries should know how to navigate the system
in which they receive care, understand the sets of incentives that
may drive health care decisions, and appreciate their own role
within an ACO to ensure they have the best opportunity to attain
their health goals.
To provide ACOs with the ability to ``market'' their
quality statistics for increased awareness of their network, similar
to employee annual healthcare enrollment.
To help drive demand for coordinated, value-based care
within Medicare FFS.
To supplement the current measures of quality and value
under the Shared Savings Program.
One commenter supported a hybrid approach with a modified claims-
based assignment approach that focuses on the most complex patients,
such as high risk patients or those receiving care for chronic
conditions. Another commenter supported a hybrid approach that would
enable beneficiaries to either voluntarily align with an ACO-
participating physician or nurse practitioner of their choice or to
opt-in to the ACO directly. The commenter stated that the hybrid
approach could be extended universally to all ACOs by default provided
claims-based assignment continued to be based on the plurality of
primary care services as opposed to a minimum threshold (for example,
seven qualified primary care services) for those who do not opt-in.
Another commenter suggested that CMS release additional information and
data on the possible seven-primary care service threshold, as they are
concerned that this threshold is too high and could have the unintended
consequence of significantly lowering several ACOs' assigned
beneficiary counts. One commenter supported the potential opt-in based
assignment methodology, as long as ACOs can voluntarily participate but
believed that there should be geographic limits placed in assigning ACO
beneficiaries.
Response: We thank commenters for their comments. As we have
indicated, we will share these comments with the Innovation Center for
consideration as part of the development of any future opt-in based
assignment methodology.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that further research and
testing is needed on the implications of an opt-in approach before
implementing such an alternative assignment methodology in the Shared
Savings Program. For example, several commenters suggested that CMS
test alternative approaches in smaller models in a variety of markets
to determine whether they meet
[[Page 68005]]
programmatic goals. One commenter recommended testing appropriate
marketing opportunities for ACOs, analogous to those in Medicare
Advantage. Another commenter suggested that any changes to the
assignment methodology should be incremental and first be pilot-tested.
One commenter recommended that, before offering a pure opt-in
assignment methodology or a hybrid approach, CMS should continue to
explore the potential burdens ACOs could encounter if beneficiaries are
permitted to opt-in to assignment to an ACO and how the option would be
explained to beneficiaries.
Many commenters were concerned with the level of beneficiary
outreach and education that would be necessary to implement an opt-in
approach. One commenter stated that through yearly focus groups, they
found that most beneficiaries are not familiar with ACOs and any policy
that would allow beneficiaries to opt-in would require a great deal of
beneficiary education and generate a large amount of beneficiary
unease. One commenter suggested that if CMS were to move forward with
an opt-in assignment approach, ACOs would need to provide beneficiaries
with timely, easily accessible, and clear information about which
providers are a part of the ACO, the ACO's quality rating, the number
and types of complaints filed against the ACO (if any), and any other
information that will help beneficiaries make the best decision given
their healthcare needs. The commenter also recommended that the
information should be presented in a standardized format that is easy
to understand as well as culturally and linguistically appropriate. One
commenter suggested that CMS develop informational materials in a
variety of modalities, formats, and languages to ensure Medicare
beneficiaries have a clear understanding of the benefits and potential
risks/compromises associated with ACOs. The commenter also recommended
that CMS develop beneficiary informational materials and instructions
that contain enough information for beneficiaries to provide informed
consent and understand what their election means. Finally, one
commenter suggested allowing beneficiaries to opt-in by telephone,
mailing, and at the point of care in the physician's office in addition
to the current electronic method.
Several commenters expressed concern that the opt-in for
beneficiaries is redundant with voluntary alignment as beneficiaries
already have the option to choose a primary clinician and thus opt-in
to an ACO in which the clinician participates. One commenter expressed
concern that the similarity between the opt-in option and the voluntary
alignment option may cause confusion among beneficiaries. One commenter
suggested CMS should continue to monitor the effectiveness of voluntary
alignment before implementing an opt-in policy and that the benefits of
beneficiary opt-in versus beneficiary voluntary alignment are not
clear. Some commenters recommended that before moving towards the
development of an opt-in methodology, CMS focus on making improvements
to increase the use of the voluntary alignment option, which would
serve as an incremental improvement in response to the broader
challenge of educating Medicare beneficiaries about ACOs. One commenter
suggested aligning an opt-in based assignment methodology with the
voluntary alignment option so that the beneficiary can essentially
``opt-in'' to the ACO by selecting their primary clinician.
Response: We appreciate the commenters' feedback regarding our
considerations in relation to the possible development of an opt-in
based assignment methodology. We will consider the feedback provided by
the commenters as part of any future consideration of an opt-in based
assignment methodology.
Comment: Some commenters compared an opt-in based assignment
methodology to Medicare Advantage. One commenter stated that the opt-in
based assignment methodology discussed in the proposed rule seems
contrary to the goals of beneficiary engagement and the beneficiary
freedom of choice offered under FFS Medicare and would be significantly
similar to managed care plans, which could create confusion between the
Shared Savings Program and Medicare Advantage. Another commenter raised
concerns based on its current Medicare Advantage experience, which
strongly suggests that beneficiaries do not actively make plan choices
for themselves. This commenter stated that adding a requirement that
beneficiaries choose to be part of an ACO does not seem like an
assignment method that will result in the long-term stabilization and
success of the program, while creating administrative burden and
confusion for beneficiaries. One commenter stated that the shared
savings economic model simply does not support the type of investments
that Medicare Advantage plans make in enrolling beneficiaries.
A commenter stated that one primary advantage of ACOs over Medicare
Advantage plans is their lower administrative costs. The commenter
contends that once an opt-in based assignment methodology is
implemented, ACO administrative costs would increase. Another commenter
stated that beneficiaries and providers already require constant
reminders of the differences between a Shared Savings Program ACO and a
Medicare Advantage Plan and an opt-in based assignment methodology into
the Shared Savings Program would provide further confusion. One
commenter believed that, unlike in Medicare Advantage, beneficiaries
would not have a clear financial incentive to enroll in an ACO because
doing so would have no effect on their premium or cost-sharing
arrangements. The commenter further contends that Medicare FFS
beneficiaries often place a high value on their freedom of choice and
may be concerned that enrollment in an ACO would restrict them to a
particular network. Another commenter expressed concerns that an opt-in
methodology for ACOs could overlap and interfere with Medicare
Advantage enrollment and expressed concern that there would not be
appropriate regulations in place, such as those that apply in Medicare
Advantage, and as a result providers could ``cherry-pick'' patients who
are more likely to help performance or ``lemon-drop'' patients who may
be more costly.
Response: We thank the commenters for their feedback and will share
these comments with the Innovation Center to further inform the
development of a model testing an opt-in based assignment methodology.
Final Action: We are not finalizing an opt-in assignment
methodology for the Shared Savings Program at this time; however, we
will work with the Innovation Center to develop a model to determine
the viability of an opt-in assignment methodology and may consider
adopting such an approach in the Shared Savings Program through future
rulemaking.
D. Benchmarking Methodology Refinements
1. Background
An ACO's historical benchmark is calculated based on expenditures
for beneficiaries that would have been assigned to the ACO in each of
the 3 calendar years prior to the start of the agreement period
(Sec. Sec. 425.602(a), 425.603(b) and (c)). For ACOs that have
continued their participation for a second or subsequent agreement
period, the benchmark years for their current agreement period are the
3 calendar
[[Page 68006]]
years of their previous agreement period.
There are currently differences between the methodology used to
establish the ACO's first agreement period historical benchmark (Sec.
425.602) and the methodology for establishing the ACO's rebased
historical benchmark in its second or subsequent agreement period
(Sec. 425.603). We refer readers to discussions of the benchmark
calculations in earlier rulemaking for details on the development of
the current policies (see November 2011 final rule, 76 FR 67909 through
67927; June 2015 final rule, 80 FR 32785 through 32796; June 2016 final
rule, 81 FR 37953 through 37991). For example, in resetting (or
rebasing) an ACO's historical benchmark, we replace the national trend
factor (used in in the first agreement period methodology) with
regional trend factors, and we use a phased approach to adjust the
rebased benchmark to reflect a percentage of the difference between the
ACO's historical expenditures and FFS expenditures in the ACO's
regional service area. This rebasing methodology incorporating factors
based on regional FFS expenditures was finalized in the June 2016 final
rule and is used to establish the benchmark for ACOs beginning a second
or subsequent agreement period in 2017 and later years. An interim
approach was established in the June 2015 final rule under which we
adjusted the rebased benchmarks for ACOs that entered a second
agreement period beginning in 2016 to account for savings generated in
their first agreement period (Sec. 425.603(b)(2)).
In developing the June 2016 final rule, we considered the weight
that should be applied in calculating the regional adjustment to an
ACO's historical expenditures. We finalized a phased approach to
transition to a higher weight in calculating the regional adjustment,
where we determine the weight used in the calculation depending on
whether the ACO is found to have lower or higher spending compared to
its regional service area (Sec. 425.603(c)(9)). For ACOs that have
higher spending compared to their regional service area, the weight
placed on the regional adjustment is reduced to 25 percent (compared to
35 percent) in the first agreement period in which the regional
adjustment is applied, and 50 percent (compared to 70 percent) in the
second agreement period in which the adjustment is applied. Ultimately
a weight of 70 percent will be applied in calculating the regional
adjustment for all ACOs beginning no later than the third agreement
period in which the ACO's benchmark is rebased using this methodology,
unless the Secretary determines that a lower weight should be applied.
The annual update to the ACO's historical benchmark also differs
for ACOs in their first versus second or subsequent agreement periods.
In an ACO's first agreement period, the benchmark is updated each
performance year based solely on the absolute amount of projected
growth in national FFS spending for assignable beneficiaries (Sec.
425.602(b)). Although section 1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act requires us
to update the benchmark using the projected absolute amount of growth
in national per capita expenditures for Medicare Parts A and B
services, we used our authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act to
adopt an alternate policy under which we calculate the national update
based on assignable beneficiaries, a subset of the Medicare FFS
population as defined under Sec. 425.20. For ACOs in a second or
subsequent agreement period (beginning in 2017 and later years), we
update the rebased benchmark annually to account for changes in FFS
spending for assignable beneficiaries in the ACO's regional service
area (Sec. 425.603(d)). We also used our authority under section
1899(i)(3) of the Act to adopt this alternate update factor based on
regional FFS expenditures.
For all ACOs, at the time of reconciliation for each performance
year, we further adjust the benchmark to account for changes in the
health status and demographic factors of the ACO's performance year
assigned beneficiary population (Sec. Sec. 425.602(a)(9),
425.603(c)(10)). We use separate methodologies to risk-adjust the
benchmark for populations of newly assigned and continuously assigned
beneficiaries. For newly assigned beneficiaries, we use CMS-HCC
prospective risk scores to adjust for changes in severity and case mix.
We use demographic factors to adjust for changes in the health status
of beneficiaries continuously assigned to the ACO. However, if the CMS-
HCC prospective risk scores for the ACO's continuously assigned
population decline, CMS will adjust the benchmark to reflect changes in
severity and case mix for this population using the lower CMS-HCC
prospective risk score. CMS-HCC prospective risk scores are based on
diagnoses from the prior calendar year, as well as demographic factors.
In section II.D. of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41883) we
proposed several changes to the program's benchmarking methodology. We
proposed to replace the current risk adjustment methodology that
separately considers newly and continuously assigned beneficiaries with
an approach that uses changes in CMS-HCC prospective risk scores for
all beneficiaries, subject to a symmetrical cap. We also proposed to
incorporate regional expenditures into benchmarks starting in an ACO's
first agreement period, to modify the regional adjustment to the
historical benchmark by revising the schedule of weights that are
applied to the adjustment and imposing a cap on the dollar amount of
the adjustment, and to use a blend of regional and national trend
factors to trend and update the benchmark. These proposals are
described in more detail in sections II.D.2 and II.D.3 of this final
rule.
Comment: A few commenters provided general support for the proposed
changes to the program's benchmarking methodologies, with one commenter
noting they could lead to more accurate determinations of savings and
losses. This commenter also believed that the benchmarking proposals
would help to encourage high performing ACOs to remain in the program
and not be forced out due to inaccurate and unfair benchmarks. However,
the commenter did not specify which elements of the current approach
they believe to be inaccurate or unfair.
Response: We appreciate the general support offered for the
proposed modifications to the benchmarking methodologies. We believe
our proposals to allow for more complete upward risk adjustment and to
incorporate regional factors into benchmarks during an ACO's first
agreement period, which we are finalizing in this final rule, will help
to improve benchmark accuracy by making an ACO's historical benchmark
more reflective of the health status of its assigned beneficiary
population and the local circumstances the ACO faces.
Comment: A few commenters called for improving the transparency and
predictability and reducing the complexity of the program's
benchmarking methodology. One commenter stated that greater
transparency would allow ACOs to perform enhanced analytics and to
better forecast their future performance. Several other commenters
urged CMS to provide ACOs with additional data, including the data used
by the agency to develop benchmarks. One commenter explained that this
would allow ACOs to replicate CMS' methodology and improve their
understanding of their own benchmarks. This commenter noted further
that the current lack of clarity regarding the determination of
[[Page 68007]]
the benchmark is a serious financial risk that may deter continued
participation. Other commenters generally called for greater alignment
between the Shared Savings Program and Medicare Advantage in terms of
spending targets or rates of growth in benchmarks, noting this would
add predictability, reduce complexity, and create a more level playing
field with respect to spending targets for the health care providers in
a region. Another commenter suggested that staff in CMS regional
offices representing the Shared Savings Program develop more expertise
in the benchmarking methodology so that they could provide ACO leaders
with one-on-one technical assistance in the place of more generalized
webinars.
Response: We believe that the policies we are finalizing in this
rule, including simplifying the risk adjustment methodology and
adopting a more consistent benchmarking methodology across agreement
periods, will promote both transparency and predictability. We
appreciate commenters' input on how to further improve transparency and
will consider these suggestions as we develop future education and
outreach plans. We also note that we will continue to make data
available, such as the county expenditure and county assigned
beneficiary public use files and ACO public use files containing ACO-
level financial and quality results for each performance year, which
will allow stakeholders to perform their own analyses. We also
appreciate commenters' interest in fostering greater alignment between
the Shared Savings Program and Medicare Advantage. We will continue to
explore opportunities to align the requirements of the two programs.
Comment: One commenter requested that CMS refrain from making any
changes to the benchmarking or financial performance methodology during
an existing agreement period. Further, they requested that CMS provide
ACOs with sufficient data to assess the impact of such changes on their
performance and allow them to elect whether to adopt the change
immediately or defer to the next agreement period.
Response: We would like to note that the changes to the program's
benchmarking methodology and to the financial risk models being
finalized in this rule will be effective for new agreement periods
beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years. ACOs that start a
12-month performance year on January 1, 2019, will have the option to
complete the remaining years of their agreement period under their
current track and subject to their existing benchmarking methodology.
However, with the elimination of the required ``sit-out period'' being
finalized in this rule (see section II.A.5.c.(4).(b) of this final
rule), ACOs that wish to transition to the new policies sooner may do
so by terminating their current participation agreement and immediately
beginning a new agreement period. We believe that this approach will
provide ACOs that are partway through an agreement period with more
flexibility around the speed at which they transition to the new
policies. As noted in the response to the previous comment, we will
continue to make public use data available that can be used by ACOs to
inform their decision-making.
2. Risk Adjustment Methodology for Adjusting Historical Benchmark Each
Performance Year
a. Background
When establishing the historical benchmark, we use the CMS-HCC
prospective risk adjustment model to calculate beneficiary risk scores
to adjust for changes in the health status of the population assigned
to the ACO. The effect of this policy is to apply full CMS-HCC risk
adjustment to account for changes in case mix in the assigned
beneficiary population between the first and third benchmark years and
between the second and third benchmark years. For consistency, this
approach is also used in adjusting the historical benchmark to account
for changes to the ACO's certified ACO participant list for performance
years within an agreement period and when resetting the ACO's
historical benchmark for its second or subsequent agreement period. See
Sec. Sec. 425.602(a)(3) and (8), 425.603(c)(3) and (8); see also
Medicare Shared Savings Program, Shared Savings and Losses and
Assignment Methodology Specifications (May 2018, version 6) available
at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/program-guidance-and-specifications.html. Further,
we use full CMS-HCC risk adjustment when risk adjusting county level
FFS expenditures and to account for differences between the health
status of the ACO's assigned population and the assignable beneficiary
population in the ACO's regional service area as part of the
methodology for adjusting the ACO's rebased historical benchmark to
reflect regional FFS expenditures in the ACO's regional service area
(see Sec. 425.603(c)(9)(i)(C), (e)).
To account for changes in beneficiary health status between the
historical benchmark period and the performance year, we perform risk
adjustment using a methodology that differentiates between newly
assigned and continuously assigned beneficiaries, as defined in Sec.
425.20. As specified under Sec. Sec. 425.604(a), 425.606(a), and
425.610(a), we use CMS-HCC prospective risk scores to account for
changes in severity and case mix for newly assigned beneficiaries
between the third benchmark year (BY3) and the performance year. We use
demographic factors to adjust for these changes in continuously
assigned beneficiaries. However, if the CMS-HCC prospective risk scores
for the continuously assigned population are lower in the performance
year, we use the lower CMS-HCC prospective risk scores to adjust for
changes in severity and case mix in this population. As we described in
earlier rulemaking, this approach provides a balance between accounting
for actual changes in the health status of an ACO's population while
limiting the risk due to coding intensity shifts--that is, efforts by
ACOs, ACO participants, and/or ACO providers/suppliers to find and
report additional beneficiary diagnoses so as to increase risk scores--
that would artificially inflate ACO benchmarks (see for example, 81 FR
38008).
As described in the Shared Savings and Losses and Assignment
Methodology specifications referenced previously in this section, all
CMS-HCC and demographic beneficiary risk scores used in financial
calculations for the Shared Savings Program are renormalized to ensure
that the mean risk score among assignable beneficiaries in the national
FFS population is equal to one. Renormalization helps to ensure
consistency in risk scores from year to year, given changes made to the
underlying risk score models. All risk adjustment calculations for the
Shared Savings Program, including risk score renormalization, are
performed separately for each Medicare enrollment type (ESRD, disabled,
aged/dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, and aged/non-dual
eligible for Medicare and Medicaid).
In practice, to risk adjust expenditures from one year to another,
we multiply the expenditures that are to be adjusted by the quotient of
two renormalized risk scores, known as the risk ratio. For example, to
risk adjust the expenditures for an ACO's assigned beneficiary
population from the first benchmark year to the third, we multiply
benchmark year 1 (BY1) expenditures, by a risk ratio equal to the mean
renormalized risk score among the ACO's assigned beneficiaries in
benchmark year 3 (BY3) divided by the
[[Page 68008]]
mean renormalized risk score among the ACO's assigned beneficiaries in
BY1. One percent growth in renormalized risk scores between 2 years
would be expressed by a risk ratio of 1.010. This ratio reflects growth
in risk for the ACO's assigned beneficiary population relative to that
of the national assignable population.
ACOs and other program stakeholders have expressed various concerns
about the methodology for risk adjusting an ACO's benchmark each
performance year, as described in comments on previous rulemaking (see
76 FR 67916 through 67919, 80 FR 32777 through 32778, 81 FR 37962
through 37968). We refer readers to these earlier rules for more
detailed discussions of the issues raised by stakeholders. A common
concern raised is that the current risk adjustment methodology does not
adequately adjust for changes in health status among continuously
assigned beneficiaries between the benchmark and performance years.
Commenters have argued that the lack of upward CMS-HCC risk adjustment
in response to increased patient acuity makes it harder for ACOs to
realize savings and serves as a barrier to more ACOs taking on
performance-based risk.
Stakeholders have also raised concerns that the current
methodology, under which risk adjustment is performed separately for
newly and continuously assigned beneficiaries, creates uncertainty
around benchmarks. One commenter in prior rulemaking described the
policy as rendering the role of risk scores ``opaque'', making it
difficult for ACOs to anticipate how risk scores may affect their
financial performance (81 FR 37968). We have attempted to increase
transparency around the program's risk adjustment process by providing
beneficiary-level risk score information in quarterly and annual
reports, as well as by providing detailed explanations of the risk
adjustment calculations to ACOs through webinars. However, despite
these efforts, concerns about transparency remain, as evidenced by the
many requests for technical assistance from ACOs related to risk
adjustment.
b. Proposed Revisions
We appreciate the concerns regarding our current risk adjustment
methodology raised by stakeholders, who have indicated that the current
approach may not adequately recognize negative changes in health status
that occur at the individual beneficiary level, particularly among
continuously assigned beneficiaries who have experienced an acute
event, such as a heart attack, stroke, or hip fracture, between the
third benchmark year and the applicable performance year. We recognize
that such acute events, which almost always require a hospitalization,
are likely to have an upward impact on CMS-HCC risk scores that is not
attributable to provider coding initiatives.
At the same time, we remain concerned that CMS-HCC risk scores, in
general, are susceptible to increased diagnostic coding efforts. As
noted previously, we employ full CMS-HCC risk adjustment when
establishing an ACO's historical benchmark for its first agreement
period, when adjusting the benchmark to account for participant list
changes within an agreement period, and when resetting the benchmark
for a second or subsequent agreement period, as we believe that doing
so improves the accuracy of the benchmark. We have observed evidence of
a modest increase in diagnostic coding completeness in the benchmark
period for ACOs in their second agreement period (rebased ACOs).
Simulation results suggest that rebased ACOs were more likely to
benefit from full CMS-HCC risk adjustment in the benchmark period than
were ACOs in a first agreement period. For rebased ACOs, the benchmark
period coincides with their first agreement period in the Shared
Savings Program, a time when these ACOs and their ACO participants and
ACO providers/suppliers had an incentive to engage in increased coding
so as to maximize their performance year risk scores, as well as their
rebased benchmark in the next agreement period. ACOs in a first
agreement period would have had less incentive to encourage their ACO
participants and ACO providers/suppliers to engage in coding
initiatives during the benchmark period as it took place before they
entered the program. We recognize, however, that increased coding by
ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers may also reflect efforts
to facilitate care coordination, quality improvement, and population
management activities which require more complete clinical information
at the point of care.
We also acknowledge that our current approach to risk adjustment
for the performance year makes it difficult for ACOs to predict how
their financial performance may be affected by risk adjustment. The
current approach involves multiple steps including identifying newly
and continuously assigned beneficiaries for each ACO for both the
performance year and BY3, computing mean CMS-HCC risk scores for both
populations and mean demographic risk scores for the continuously
assigned beneficiary population by Medicare enrollment type, conducting
a test to determine whether an ACO will receive CMS-HCC or demographic
risk adjustment for its continuously assigned population, and
determining and applying the risk ratios used to adjust benchmark
expenditures for the performance year. Although we have made efforts to
explain these steps in detail through our program specifications,
report documentation, and webinars, and have made beneficiary-level
risk score data available, we frequently receive requests for technical
assistance in this area suggesting that the methodology is still not
entirely clear to ACOs.
To balance these competing concerns, during the development of the
proposed rule we considered policies that would allow for some upward
growth in CMS-HCC risk scores between the benchmark period and the
performance year, while still limiting the impact of ACO coding
initiatives, and also provide greater clarity for ACOs than the current
methodology. In contemplating alternative policies, we also considered
lessons learned from other CMS initiatives, including models tested by
the Innovation Center. Finally, as we wished to encourage ACOs to take
on higher levels of risk, we considered the importance of adopting a
balanced risk adjustment methodology that would provide ACOs with some
protection against decreases in risk scores.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41885), we explained that
our preferred approach would be to eliminate the distinction between
newly and continuously assigned beneficiaries. We would use full CMS-
HCC risk adjustment for all assigned beneficiaries between the
benchmark period and the performance year, subject to a symmetrical cap
of positive or negative 3 percent for the agreement period, which would
apply such that the adjustment between BY3 and any performance year in
the agreement period would never be more than 3 percent in either
direction. In other words, the risk ratios applied to historical
benchmark expenditures to capture changes in health status between BY3
and the performance year would never fall below 0.970 nor be higher
than 1.030 for any performance year over the course of the agreement
period. As is the case under the current policy, risk adjustment
calculations would still be carried out separately for each of the four
Medicare enrollment types (ESRD, disabled, aged/dual eligible, aged/
non-dual eligible) and CMS-HCC prospective risk scores for
[[Page 68009]]
each enrollment type would still be renormalized to the national
assignable beneficiary population for that enrollment type before the
cap is applied. Table 12 provides an illustrative example of how the
cap would be applied to the risk ratio used to adjust historical
benchmark expenditures to reflect changes in health status between BY3
and the performance year, for any performance year in the agreement
period:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.016
In the example, the decrease in the disabled risk score and the
increase in the aged/dual risk score would both be subject to the
positive or negative 3 percent cap. Changes in the ESRD and aged/non-
dual risk scores would not be affected by the cap; the ACO would
receive full upward and downward adjustment, respectively, for these
enrollment types.
As we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule, this approach
would provide full CMS-HCC risk adjustment for ACOs with changes in
CMS-HCC risk below the cap, and a partial adjustment for ACOs with
changes in CMS-HCC risk above the cap. Initial modeling suggested that
among the 239 ACOs that received demographic risk adjustment for their
continuously assigned population under the current policy in PY 2016
(55 percent of the 432 total ACOs reconciled), around 86 percent would
have received a larger positive adjustment to their benchmark had this
policy been in place. Therefore, as we stated in the August 2018
proposed rule, we believed this approach would more consistently
account for worsening health status of beneficiaries compared to the
current policy. This could reduce the incentive for ACOs to avoid
complex patients and potentially lead more ACOs to accept higher levels
of performance-based risk. However, because of the cap on the increase
in CMS-HCC risk, we believed that this policy would continue to provide
protection to the Medicare Trust Funds against unwarranted increases in
CMS-HCC prospective risk scores that are due to increased coding
intensity, by limiting the impact of such increases on ACO benchmarks.
By instituting a symmetrical cap, this approach would also limit
large decreases in CMS-HCC prospective risk scores across all assigned
beneficiaries. We believed that such an approach would provide ACOs
with a greater incentive to assume performance-based risk than the
current methodology, which provides ACOs with no protection from risk
score decreases. Among the 193 ACOs that received CMS-HCC risk
adjustment under the current policy for their continuously assigned
population in PY 2016, 69 percent would have received a smaller
negative adjustment with the symmetrical 3 percent cap. We also
believed that this approach, which mirrors one of the risk adjustment
methodologies tested in the Next Generation ACO Model, would have an
advantage over the current Shared Savings Program policy in that it
would be more straightforward, making it easier for ACOs to understand
and determine the impact of risk adjustment on their benchmark. ACOs
would be subject to risk adjustment within a clearly defined range,
allowing them to more easily predict their performance.
Our proposed choice of 3 percent as the preferred level for the
symmetrical cap was influenced by program experience. A review of CMS-
HCC risk score trends among Shared Savings Program ACOs found that a 3
percent cap on changes in aged/non-dual CMS-HCC risk scores (the
enrollment category that represents the majority of assigned
beneficiaries for most ACOs) would limit positive risk adjustment for
less than 30 percent of ACOs, even when there is a 5-year lapse between
BY3 and the performance year, which would be the case in the final year
of a 5 year agreement period under the proposal discussed in section
II.A.2. of this final rule (or a 6-year lapse for the final performance
year of the agreement period for ACOs that start a new agreement period
on July 1, 2019, under the proposal discussed in section II.A.2. of
this final rule). A 3-percent symmetrical cap was also advocated by
some commenters on the 2016 proposed rule, who encouraged the Shared
Savings Program to adopt a risk adjustment model similar to the one
being used by the Next Generation ACO Model (see 81 FR 37968). Although
we stated that we believed that a 3 percent cap on changes in CMS-HCC
risk scores would be reasonable and appropriate, we also considered
alternate levels for a cap or allowing full CMS-HCC risk adjustment
with no cap at all. However, we were concerned that a lower cap would
not offer enough ACOs meaningfully greater protection against health
status changes relative to the current approach. At the same time, we
were concerned that adopting a higher cap, or allowing for full,
uncapped risk adjustment would not provide sufficient protection
against potential coding initiatives.
After consideration of these alternatives, we proposed to change
the program's risk adjustment methodology to use CMS-HCC prospective
risk scores to adjust the historical benchmark for changes in severity
and case mix for all assigned beneficiaries, subject to a symmetrical
cap of positive or negative 3 percent for the agreement period for
agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years.
The cap would reflect the maximum change in risk scores allowed in an
agreement period between BY3 and any
[[Page 68010]]
performance year in the agreement period. For ACOs participating in a 5
year and 6-month agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, as
discussed in section II.A.7. of this final rule, the cap would
represent the maximum change in risk scores for the agreement period
between BY3 and CY 2019 in the context of determining financial
performance for the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, as well as the maximum change in risk scores between
BY3 and any of the subsequent five performance years of the agreement
period. We would apply this approach to ACOs participating under the
proposed BASIC track, as reflected in the proposed new section of the
regulations at Sec. 425.605, and to ACOs participating under the
proposed ENHANCED track, as reflected in the proposed modifications to
Sec. 425.610. We sought comment on this proposal, including the level
of the cap.
Comment: Many of the stakeholders that commented on the proposed
changes to the risk adjustment methodology applauded the proposed
discontinuation of the current methodology, which distinguishes between
newly and continuously assigned beneficiaries, and generally supported
CMS' efforts to better recognize changes in beneficiary risk scores
during an agreement period. A few commenters noted that the current
policy creates unnecessary confusion and complexity, while another
commenter believed that not allowing for upward CMS-HCC adjustment for
all beneficiaries was unreasonable. Another commenter described the
proposed approach as being simpler than the current methodology while
being more protective of changes in patient mix.
Unlike other commenters, MedPAC encouraged CMS to continue to
distinguish between newly and continuously assigned beneficiaries, but
to modify the current methodology to adjust benchmarks based on only
demographic factors for continuously assigned beneficiaries and based
on CMS-HCC scores for newly assigned beneficiaries. Under this approach
we would no longer use CMS-HCC risk scores to perform downward
adjustments for continuously assigned beneficiaries, which would remove
the asymmetry of the current methodology. MedPAC expressed concern that
the proposed methodology would allow ACO benchmarks to increase due to
either more aggressive coding efforts or the worsening health status of
assigned beneficiaries and that an ACO would potentially be penalized
when patients' health is maintained or better managed, which they noted
is a key objective of the program. They believe that their recommended
alternative would improve the alignment of ACO financial incentives
with beneficiary health status, allowing ACOs to benefit financially
when they do a good job of maintaining patient's health.
Response: We appreciate commenters' support of our proposal to
eliminate the current methodology used to risk adjust historical
benchmark expenditures and our desire to better recognize changes in
beneficiary health status while still protecting the Medicare Trust
Funds from increases in coding intensity. We agree with commenters that
the elimination of the current methodology, which distinguishes between
newly and continuously assigned beneficiaries, should provide a less
complex and more transparent risk adjustment approach.
We believe that MedPAC's suggested approach would not accomplish
one of the goals of our proposed modification to the risk adjustment
methodology, which was to provide better recognition for changes in
beneficiary health status between the benchmark period and the
performance year. We are also concerned that by limiting downward
adjustments in risk scores for continuously assigned beneficiaries to
the changes in demographic risk scores for this population, MedPAC's
recommended methodology could create windfall gains for an ACO if
average CMS-HCC risk scores for the ACO's continuously assigned
beneficiaries decrease more (or increase less) between the benchmark
period and the performance year than the national average.
Comment: Several commenters appeared to support the proposed
symmetrical 3 percent cap on changes in risk scores, with one
requesting that it be allowed to go into effect for performance years
beginning on January 1, 2019. They suggested that the proposed change
would reduce the uncertainty regarding the impact of risk adjustment on
ACO financial results due to the 6-month agreement period extension for
some ACOs. Other commenters who supported this proposal requested that
CMS provide greater transparency regarding the expected impacts of the
proposed cap and encouraged CMS to monitor the cap to ensure that it is
providing proper balance between CMS's concerns about increases in
coding intensity and the desire for health care providers to accurately
capture beneficiary health status. However, most of the commenters who
offered general support for the proposed changes to the risk adjustment
methodology, as well as other commenters, opposed the proposed
symmetrical 3 percent cap.
Several commenters, including commenters representing academic and
research institutions, physician associations, health care alliances
and task forces, and individual ACOs, expressed concern that that the
proposed symmetrical cap on risk score changes may have unintended
consequences by introducing incentives for ACO to engage in favorable
risk selection; that is, to avoid sicker beneficiaries or to seek out
healthier beneficiaries. A few commenters recommended that, at a
minimum, CMS eliminate the proposed downside cap.
Many commenters expressed concerns that the proposed cap would not
be sufficient to adequately capture health status changes over a 5-year
agreement period. A number of commenters representing the same
organization stated that the proposed cap would not protect health care
providers who serve the most medically complicated patients and would
make shared savings unattainable by continuing to incorrectly capture
the health status of beneficiaries. Several other commenters described
the 3 percent cap as arbitrary and insufficient when applied across a
five-year agreement period. Others called for increasing the cap on
upward adjustments over the length of the agreement period in order to
account for the aging of the population and natural progression of
disease over the agreement period and to best capture acuity increases
in years farthest from the benchmark. Another commenter noted that an
upward cap on risk adjustment would limit the ability to capture random
changes in patient mix which, in turn, would reduce the predictability
of an ACO's financial performance and make the program less attractive.
Another commenter suggested that artificially capping risk scores
denies ACOs access to information that provides an accurate picture of
patient health status. One commenter pointed out that a symmetrical 3
percent cap would leave both ACOs and CMS vulnerable to significant
changes in population demographics. Another commenter liked that the
proposed cap was more consistent with policies used in the Next
Generation ACO Model but was concerned that, when applied over a 5-year
agreement period, the 3 percent cap would penalize ACOs that treat high
risk patients or patients whose burden of illness increases over time.
While the perceived inability of the proposed cap to capture health
status changes over a five year agreement
[[Page 68011]]
period was the most commonly cited concern among commenters, many
commenters also had concerns about the potential impact of the proposed
cap on upward benchmark adjustments for ACOs whose providers are new to
the concept of risk adjustment, ACOs that are engaged in efforts to
improve their diagnostic coding to better reflect the acuity of their
patients, or ACOs that are working to manage care for complex patients
who were previously receiving only episodic services. One commenter
expressed the belief that limiting increases in CMS-HCC risk scores
punishes ACOs that are attempting to accurately capture the conditions
of their patients and suggested that the proposed cap would lead to
greater restrictions on changes in risk scores than the current policy.
Other commenters had similar concerns, indicating that the proposed
upward limit on risk score growth would discourage efforts by ACOs to
improve diagnostic coding. One commenter stated that accurate risk
adjustment based on patients' complete CMS-HCC) classification was one
of the key components to organizational success in a Shared Savings
Program ACO and expressed the belief that the proposed cap would not
provide sufficient incentives for health care providers to make
investments in improving their documentation and coding practices.
Another commenter noted that as patients receive better, more
coordinated care, their risk profile will also increase and that health
care providers should be encouraged to continue to care for complex
patients who could benefit from comprehensive care management.
One commenter did not offer a suggestion for a specific alternative
to the proposed symmetrical 3 percent cap but requested that CMS
provide the modeling upon which it based its proposal so that ACOs can
analyze the same data that CMS used and provide recommendations for a
higher cap that would meet the needs of both CMS and ACOs. However,
many other commenters offered a variety of alternatives to the proposed
cap. The most common recommendation was for a symmetrical 5 percent cap
over the agreement period. One commenter stated that this cap would be
more accurate over a 5-year term. Another commenter justified this
higher cap for the agreement period by noting that ACOs may experience
changes in the population that affect the risk score by more than 1
percent per year. Another suggestion offered by several commenters was
to allow risk scores to change by 3 percent annually over the course of
the agreement period, such that an ACO's risk score would be allowed to
change by 3 percent in the first year of the agreement period, by an
additional 3 percent in the second year, and so on. One commenter
suggested that a 3 percent annual cap would preserve stability and
better reflect the clinical complexity and patient characteristics of
an ACO's population. Commenters also suggested other alternatives
including fixed caps for the agreement period above 5 percent, caps
that increase for each subsequent year of the agreement period, or caps
that vary based on ACO size or ACO track.
Alternatively, several commenters called for full, uncapped CMS-HCC
risk adjustment. A few commenters suggested that using risk scores that
are renormalized to the national population would protect the Medicare
Trust Funds from increased coding without the need for caps. Another
commenter noted that uncapped risk adjustment would be consistent with
risk adjustment in Medicare Advantage. Others suggested that full risk
adjustment would help organizations that serve higher acuity patient
populations and would protect small and medium size ACOs from changes
in risk profiles that can result from patient churn. One commenter
expressed the belief that capping risk adjustment would harm ACOs that
have been affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance, as
such events can have negative impacts on beneficiary mental and
physical health that would not be present in the benchmark years.
Response: We appreciate all of the comments we received on these
proposals. After considering the comments received in response to our
proposed changes to the risk adjustment methodology, we are finalizing
our proposal to use CMS-HCC risk scores to adjust the historical
benchmark for all beneficiaries. While we are finalizing our proposal
to cap positive risk score changes at 3 percent, we are not finalizing
our proposal to limit negative risk score changes. Although we
originally believed that a symmetrical cap would offer a balanced
approach and provide an incentive for ACOs to accept performance-based
risk by protecting them from large negative adjustments to their
benchmark expenditures, we ultimately share the concern raised by some
commenters that this approach would encourage favorable risk selection.
If ACOs seek to attract low-cost beneficiaries or avoid high-cost
beneficiaries, they could lower their performance year expenditures
without any corresponding adjustment to their benchmark due to the cap
on negative risk adjustments. We believe that this effect would be
detrimental to medically complex patients, who may miss the opportunity
to receive better coordinated care through an ACO, as well as to the
Medicare Trust Funds.
However, after additional consideration, we are finalizing our
proposal to apply a 3 percent cap on upward risk adjustment. We remain
concerned that adopting a higher cap on risk score increases, or
adopting no cap, would provide insufficient protection against efforts
to increase coding intensity.
We disagree with the premise implied by some commenters that the
overall disease burden of an ACO's assigned beneficiary population will
necessarily increase over a longer agreement period. The cap on risk
score increases will be applied to changes in an ACO's mean
renormalized CMS-HCC risk score between benchmark year 3 and the
performance year. The changes in the mean risk scores will reflect both
changes in health status among beneficiaries that are assigned to the
ACO in both periods and the impact of beneficiaries exiting and
entering the ACO's assigned beneficiary population between the two
periods. We might expect disease burden to increase among the stable
component of the ACO's assigned beneficiary population because, by
default, this population will be older during the performance year than
during the third benchmark year. However, the impact of the churn in
the ACO's beneficiary population is indeterminate, meaning that it
could increase or decrease the ACO's average risk score. For example,
an ACO's overall mean risk score could decrease if a disproportionately
large number of new Medicare enrollees are assigned to the ACO in the
performance year, even if the mean risk score for the stable component
of the population has increased. We continue to believe that a positive
3 percent cap represents a reasonable balance between recognizing
potential differences in health status between an ACO's benchmark year
3 and performance year populations and protecting the Trust Funds
against excessive coding.
We recognize that changes in risk scores can occur when providers
and suppliers increase the completeness and accuracy of their
diagnostic coding, even if these efforts are not made with an intention
of gaming. We do not believe that the proposed 3 percent cap in upward
risk adjustment that we are finalizing would necessarily harm or reduce
incentives for ACOs that are attempting to more accurately capture
[[Page 68012]]
the conditions of their patients. As we described in the August 2018
proposed rule, our analysis based on performance year 2016 found that
the proposed 3 percent cap on risk score increases would have been less
restrictive than the current approach for ACOs that received
demographic risk adjustment for their continuously assigned population
and would have the added benefit of being simpler and more transparent.
We also noted in the proposed rule that in a review of risk score
trends among Shared Savings Program ACOs, a 3 percent cap on changes in
aged/non-dual risk scores would limit positive risk adjustment for less
than 30 percent of ACOs over a 5- or 6-year period. This analysis,
which was based on CMS-HCC risk score trends between 2009 and 2015 and
between 2010 and 2015 (using benchmark and performance year risk score
data from performance year 2015 results) and trends between 2011 and
2016 (using benchmark and performance year risk score data from
performance year 2016 results), found generally comparable results for
the other three Medicare enrollment types. The aged/dual category
showed the highest percentage of ACOs that would be bound by a positive
3 percent cap over a 5- or 6-year period at 30 to 33 percent. We have
since performed additional analysis that looked at 5-year trends in ACO
CMS-HCC risk scores using benchmark and performance year data from
results for performance years 2014 through 2017. This expanded analysis
found similar results, with the share of ACOs with 5-year risk score
increases exceeding 3 percent ranging from 20 percent for ESRD to 32
percent for aged/dual. We would like to note, however, that even for
ACOs affected by the cap, there will most often be a varying mix of
risk ratios across the four enrollment types. Furthermore, capping will
not limit a potential benchmark increase related to shifts in
beneficiaries from lower to higher-cost enrollment types (for example,
growth in the proportion of aged/dual beneficiaries between benchmark
year 3 and the performance year). We would like to note that for
stakeholders interested in conducting their own analyses of risk score
trends, the Shared Savings Program ACO public use files, available on
the CMS website for performance years 2013 through 2017, include ACO-
level CMS-HCC risk scores for each benchmark year and performance year.
We appreciate the concern raised by one commenter about the
implications of the risk adjustment cap on ACOs whose assigned
beneficiaries reside in areas impacted by an extreme and uncontrollable
circumstance. We believe that the 3 percent cap that we are finalizing
will allow for greater growth in risk scores for continuously assigned
beneficiaries relative to the current policy. Thus, we believe the
policy will better recognize any negative health status changes
experienced by ACO assigned beneficiaries residing in disaster-affected
areas than our current approach, while still guarding against increases
in coding intensity.
Although we believe that the 3 percent cap on positive risk
adjustment that we are finalizing in this rule is reasonable, we will
monitor the impacts of the cap as we gain experience with the new
policy and, if appropriate, will propose modifications through future
notice and comment rulemaking.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that any cap be applied at
the aggregate level rather than the enrollment type level. One
commenter suggested that capping the risk ratios in the aggregate
across the four beneficiary enrollment types to account for smaller
sample sizes and resulting higher volatility for certain enrollment
types. Another commenter noted that applying the cap at the aggregate
level would be more appropriate to accurately reflect the changing risk
and mix of an ACO's population. An additional commenter expressed the
belief that ACOs should not be penalized if they have low risk score
growth overall but high growth in any one given eligibility category.
Response: We appreciate the perspectives offered by commenters on
whether the risk score cap should be applied at the enrollment type
level or the aggregate level. Although an aggregate approach could
potentially address concerns about greater volatility among enrollment
types with fewer beneficiaries, we believe that the proposed approach
of applying the cap separately for each enrollment type would be more
consistent with other benchmarking calculations, which are also
performed for each enrollment type, and would also be more transparent.
We therefore are finalizing our proposal to apply the cap on risk
adjustment increases at the enrollment type level.
Comment: Several commenters acknowledged that excessive coding was
a potential concern but encouraged CMS to consider an approach other
than capping CMS-HCC risk score growth to address this issue. One
commenter suggested implementing a coding intensity adjustment like the
one used in Medicare Advantage, creating audit mechanisms to detect
inappropriate coding, and introducing harsh penalties for ACOs found to
engage in these practices. Some of these ideas were echoed by other
commenters who suggested that CMS consider approaches used by Medicare
Advantage or make greater use of auditing. Another commenter suggested
using ACO Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems
(CAHPS) survey data to determine the extent to which increases in CMS-
HCC scores reflect changes in coding versus changes in health status
and to use that information to limit benchmark increases in a more
refined, ACO-specific manner after an initial grace period.
One commenter recommended using a prospectively-determined annual
coding factor adjustment that CMS could, with advance regulatory notice
to ACOs, retroactively modify if the final observed risk trend for the
applicable performance years deviates significantly from what was
projected. The commenter noted that this approach is currently used in
the Next Generation ACO Model and that it would be preferable to the
renormalization approach currently employed in the Shared Savings
Program because it would allow ACOs more predictability in their
financial forecasting.
Response: We did not propose or seek comment on alternative
mechanisms for addressing coding concerns in the proposed rule and are
therefore not adopting any of these suggestions at this time. We
believe the cap we are finalizing on positive growth in renormalized
risk scores provides a transparent approach to limiting the potential
adverse effects of ACO-level coding initiatives. However, we will
continue to monitor this issue and, if necessary, we will make
appropriate refinements to the risk adjustment methodology to address
coding concerns through future rulemaking.
Comment: Some commenters offered other criticisms of the program's
current risk adjustment methodology or the CMS-HCC model, with a number
suggesting refinements. For example, several commenters recommended
that risk adjustment should account for social and economic factors,
with one commenter suggesting that CMS use clinical and social
characteristics included in the CAHPS survey to further adjust ACO
benchmarks. One commenter recommended including a frailty adjustment
such as is used in the Programs for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly
(PACE) program to better reflect the true cost of caring for patients
near the end of life. Another commenter suggested that CMS explore
changes to the risk adjustment model to lower the influence of
provider-reported risk
[[Page 68013]]
factors and rely more on demographic factors and beneficiary-reported
diagnoses, functional status, and other factors that can provide equal
or greater explanatory statistical power than the current model. A
different commenter also noted that the program's risk adjustment
methodology still does not account for important factors such as
functional status and severity or stage of illness. Another commenter
requested that CMS refine the CMS-HCC risk adjustment methodology to
better account for the unique characteristics and needs of the SNF
population.
One commenter noted that the CMS-HCC risk adjustment model does not
recognize all chronic conditions using chronic ischemic heart disease
without angina pectoris as an example. This commenter noted that
individuals with heart disease (with or without angina) require on-
going care management for this chronic condition and health care
providers need the resources to do so. The same commenter also noted
that the current annual adjustment to the historical benchmark for
changes in beneficiary health status at the time of reconciliation does
not take into consideration disease progression and/or unforeseen
circumstances or changes in health status and/or acuity. They believed
that an increase in adjustment frequency would assist ACOs in being
more successful. A separate commenter also suggested that CMS fully
recalculate benchmarks more frequently, but did not explain what they
perceived as the benefits of this option.
Another commenter recommended that risk scores for ACO
beneficiaries should mirror risk scoring for Medicare Advantage
patients but did not provide further context for this suggestion. A
different commenter suggested that CMS adopt a rolling risk adjustment
methodology similar to the one that is used in the Next Generation ACO
Model in place of the current approach that compares each performance
year to benchmark year 3.
A few other commenters recommended that CMS modify the current
methodology to use the same CMS-HCC risk score model to calculate risk
scores for both the benchmark years and the performance year. Another
commenter requested that CMS make adjustments to ACO baseline scores,
not just benchmarks, as many conditions that may be newly documented
when patients are assigned to an ACO are not new diagnoses for the
patient. A few commenters requested that CMS implement the same risk
adjustment policy for the Shared Savings Program and Medicare Advantage
or across all Medicare programs to ensure parity, while another
recommended that CMS consider policies that equalize current actuarial
disparities that result from risk adjustment across Medicare programs.
Response: We appreciate the concerns raised by commenters and the
suggestions offered for refining the Shared Savings Program's general
risk adjustment methodology, which for each benchmark or performance
year, relies on the national CMS-HCC prospective risk adjustment model
used in Medicare Advantage for that same calendar year. Using the CMS-
HCC prospective risk adjustment model allows the Shared Savings Program
to align with Medicare Advantage and allows us to incorporate risk
adjustment enhancements and refinements, such as future adjustments for
beneficiaries with multiple conditions, as they are incorporated into
the CMS-HCC model over time. We will share the feedback received on the
CMS-HCC model with our CMS colleagues that administer that model.
We decline at this time to adopt commenters' suggestions for
further refinements to the risk adjustment methodology for the Shared
Savings Program. We believe that the modifications to the risk
adjustment methodology that we are finalizing will better recognize
changes in health status in an ACO's assigned beneficiary population
than the current methodology, while still providing a degree of
protection against intensive coding practices. We also note that our
current practice of using risk scores that are renormalized to the
national assignable FFS population adjusts for changes in the
underlying CMS-HCC models that may occur between benchmark years or
between benchmark years and the performance year.
Final Action: After considering the comments received and
additional internal analysis, we are finalizing some, but not all, of
our proposed changes to the program's risk adjustment methodology.
Specifically, we will use CMS-HCC prospective risk scores to adjust the
historical benchmark for changes in severity and case mix for all
assigned beneficiaries, subject to a cap of positive 3 percent for the
agreement period for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and
in subsequent years. This cap will reflect the maximum increase in risk
scores allowed between BY3 and any performance year in the agreement
period. For ACOs participating in a 5 year and 6-month agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019, as discussed in section II.A.7. of this
final rule, the cap will represent the maximum change in risk scores
for the agreement period between BY3 and CY 2019 in the context of
determining financial performance for the 6-month performance year from
July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, as well as the maximum change
in risk scores between BY3 and any of the subsequent five performance
years of the agreement period. The cap will be applied separately for
each of the four enrollment types. We will apply this approach for ACOs
participating under the BASIC track through a new provision of the
regulations at Sec. 425.605(a), and for ACOs participating under the
proposed ENHANCED track through modifications to the existing provision
at Sec. 425.610(a). We are not finalizing our proposal to apply a 3
percent cap on negative risk score changes.
3. Use of Regional Factors When Establishing and Resetting ACOs'
Benchmarks
a. Background
As described in the background for this section, we apply a
regional adjustment to the rebased historical benchmark for ACOs
entering a second or subsequent agreement period in 2017 or later
years. This adjustment reflects a percentage of the difference between
the regional FFS expenditures in the ACO's regional service area and
the ACO's historical expenditures. The percentage used in calculating
the adjustment is phased in over time, ultimately reaching 70 percent,
unless the Secretary determines a lower weight should be applied and
such lower weight is specified through additional notice and comment
rulemaking.
In the June 2016 final rule, we laid out the steps used to
calculate and apply the regional adjustment (see 81 FR 37963). These
steps are recapped here:
First, we calculate the ACO's rebased historical
benchmark and regional average expenditures for the most recent
benchmark year for each Medicare enrollment type (ESRD, disabled,
aged/dual eligible, aged/non-dual eligible), resulting in average
per capita expenditure values for each of the Medicare enrollment
types. The regional average expenditure amounts are adjusted for
differences between the health status of the ACO's assigned
beneficiary population and that of the assignable population in the
ACO's regional service area.
For each Medicare enrollment type, we then determine
the difference between the average per capita regional amount and
the average per capita amount of the ACO's rebased historical
benchmark. These values may be positive or negative. For example,
the difference between these values for a particular Medicare
enrollment type will be
[[Page 68014]]
expressed as a negative number if the value of the ACO's rebased
historical benchmark expenditure for that Medicare enrollment type
is greater than the regional average amount.
Next, we multiply the resulting difference for each
Medicare enrollment type by the applicable percentage weight used to
calculate the amount of the regional adjustment for that agreement
period. The products (one for each Medicare enrollment type)
resulting from this step are the amounts of the regional adjustments
that will be applied to the ACO's historical benchmark.
We then apply the adjustment to the ACO's rebased
historical benchmark by adding the adjustment amount for the
Medicare enrollment type to the ACO's rebased historical benchmark
expenditure for the same Medicare enrollment type.
We next multiply the regionally-adjusted value of the
ACO's rebased historical benchmark for each Medicare enrollment type
by the proportion of the ACO's assigned beneficiary population for
that Medicare enrollment type, based on the ACO's assigned
beneficiary population for benchmark year 3.
Finally, we sum expenditures across the four Medicare
enrollment types to determine the ACO's regionally-adjusted rebased
historical benchmark.
In the June 2016 final rule, we also detailed how the percentage
weight used to calculate the regional adjustment will be phased in over
time (see 81 FR 37971 through 37974). For the first agreement period in
which this methodology applies, ACOs for which the weighted average
adjustment across the enrollment types is positive (net positive
adjustment) will receive a weight of 35 percent for all enrollment
types (including individual enrollment types for which the adjustment
is negative) and ACOs for which the weighted average adjustment is
negative (net negative adjustment) will receive a weight of 25 percent
for all enrollment types (including individual enrollment types for
which the adjustment is positive). For the second agreement period in
which the methodology applies, ACOs with a net positive adjustment will
receive a weight of 70 percent for all enrollment types and ACOs with a
net negative adjustment will receive a weight of 50 percent for all
enrollment types. By the third agreement period in which the
methodology applies, ACOs with either a net positive or a net negative
adjustment will receive a weight of 70 percent for all enrollment
types, unless the Secretary determines that a lower weight should be
applied.
This regional adjustment is one of three ways in which regional
expenditures are currently incorporated into the program's methodology
for resetting the historical benchmark for an ACO's second or
subsequent agreement period. We also use regional, instead of national,
trend factors for each enrollment type to restate BY1 and BY2
expenditures in BY3 terms when calculating the rebased benchmark, and
we use regional update factors to update the regionally-adjusted
rebased historical benchmark to the performance year at the time of
financial reconciliation. As described in the June 2016 final rule (81
FR 37977 through 37981), we used our statutory authority under section
1899(i)(3) of the Act to adopt a policy under which we update the
benchmark using regional factors in lieu of the projected absolute
amount of growth in national per capita expenditures for Parts A and B
services under the original Medicare FFS program as required under
section 1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act.
The regional trend factors used to calculate an ACO's rebased
benchmark and the regional update factors used to update the benchmark
to the performance year represent growth rates in risk-adjusted FFS
expenditures among assignable beneficiaries in the ACO's regional
service area, including beneficiaries assigned to the ACO. An ACO's
regional service area is defined at Sec. 425.20 as all counties in
which at least one of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries resides. To
calculate expenditures used in determining the regional adjustment and
the trend and update factors, we first calculate risk-adjusted FFS
expenditures among assignable beneficiaries for each county in the
ACO's regional service area and then weight these amounts by the
proportion of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries residing in each county,
with all calculations performed separately by Medicare enrollment type
(ESRD, disabled, aged/dual, aged/non-dual).
In the June 2016 final rule, we discussed the benefits that we
believe to be associated with incorporating regional expenditures into
ACO benchmarks. We explained, for example, that the incorporation of
regional expenditures provides an ACO with a benchmark that is more
reflective of FFS spending in the ACO's region than a benchmark based
solely on the ACO's own historical expenditures (see 81 FR 37955). We
believe that this approach creates stronger financial incentives for
ACOs that have been successful in reducing expenditures to remain in
the program, thus improving program sustainability. Many commenters
expressed support for the approach, citing it as an improvement over
the existing rebasing methodology (see 81 FR 37956). In the June 2016
final rule, we also discussed how using regional trend and update
factors would allow us to better capture the cost experience in the
ACO's region, the health status and socio-economic dynamics of the
regional population, and location-specific Medicare payments when
compared to using national FFS expenditures (see 81 FR 37976 through
37977). In that rule, we stated our intention to explore the
possibility of incorporating regional expenditures, including the
regional adjustment and regional trend and update factors, in the
benchmark established for an ACO's first agreement period (see 81 FR
37973). In section II.D.3.b. of this final rule, we discuss our
proposals for incorporating regional expenditures into the benchmarks
for ACOs in their first agreement period under the program.
We also acknowledged in the June 2016 final rule that the
incorporation of regional expenditures into ACO benchmarks can have
differential effects depending on an ACO's individual circumstances
(see 81 FR 37955). For example, ACOs with low historical expenditures
relative to their regional service area will see their rebased
historical benchmark increase due to the regional adjustment, whereas
the benchmarks for higher spending ACOs will be reduced. One concern is
that, as the higher weights for the regional adjustment are phased in
over time, the benchmarks for low-spending ACOs may become overly
inflated to the point where these organizations need to do little to
maintain or change their practices to generate savings. For higher-
spending ACOs, there is the concern that a negative regional adjustment
will discourage program participation or discourage these ACOs from
caring for complex, high-cost patients. There is also concern about the
longer-term effects on participation resulting from lower trend and
update factors among ACOs that have had past success in reducing
expenditures and that serve a high proportion of the beneficiaries
within certain counties in their regional service area. In sections
II.D.3.c. and II.D.3.d. of this final rule, we discuss our proposals in
the August 2018 proposed rule designed to mitigate these concerns.
b. Applying Regional Expenditures in Determining the Benchmark for an
ACO's First Agreement Period
A number of stakeholders offering comments on the February 2016
proposed rule advocated for extending the policies incorporating
regional expenditures proposed for determining the rebased benchmarks
for ACOs entering a second or subsequent
[[Page 68015]]
agreement period under the program to the methodology for establishing
the benchmarks for ACOs in their first agreement period under the
program (see 81 FR 37971). While we declined to modify the methodology
used to establish benchmarks for ACOs in a first agreement period to
incorporate regional expenditures as part of the June 2016 final rule,
we did signal our intention to explore this matter further after
gaining experience with the new rebasing methodology (see 81 FR 37973).
Since the publication of the June 2016 final rule we have employed
the new methodology to determine rebased benchmarks for ACOs starting
second agreement periods in 2017 and 2018. This experience has
reinforced our belief that a benchmarking methodology that incorporates
regional expenditures, in addition to an ACO's own historical
expenditures, is important for the sustainability of the program. For
agreement periods starting in 2017, for example, we found that around
80 percent of ACOs receiving a rebased benchmark benefitted from
receiving a regional adjustment. Having observed variation across ACO
regional service areas, we also maintain that the incorporation of
regional expenditure trends can lead to more accurate benchmarks that
better reflect experience in ACOs' individual regions than benchmarks
computed solely using national factors. As we explained in the August
2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41887), we believe that introducing regional
expenditures into the benchmarking methodology for ACOs in a first
agreement period, as has been recommended by stakeholders, would serve
to further strengthen the incentives under the program, improve program
sustainability, and increase the accuracy of benchmark calculations for
new ACOs by making their benchmarks more reflective of the regional
environment in which these organizations operate. We also believe that
adopting a more consistent benchmarking methodology would provide
greater simplicity and more predictability for ACOs. Under this
approach, ACOs entering the program would only be required to
familiarize themselves with a single benchmarking methodology that
would apply for all agreement periods under the program.
For the previously stated reasons, we proposed to incorporate
regional expenditures into the benchmarking methodology for ACOs in a
first agreement period for all ACOs entering the program beginning on
July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years. Under this proposal, we would
use almost the same methodology for determining the historical
benchmarks for ACOs in their first agreement period as would apply for
ACOs in their second or subsequent agreement period, including all
policies proposed in the August 2018 proposed rule, should they be
finalized, regarding establishing the historical benchmark at the start
of the agreement period, adjusting the historical benchmark for each
performance year within an agreement period, and updating the benchmark
for each performance year (or for CY 2019 in the context of determining
the financial performance of ACOs during the 6-month performance year
from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, as discussed in section
II.A.7. of this final rule). The only distinction between the
methodology that would be used to determine the historical benchmark
for ACOs in their first agreement period and those in a second or
subsequent agreement period would be the weights that are applied to
the 3 benchmark years. Under this proposal, we would continue to use
weights of 10 percent, 30 percent, and 60 percent to weight the 3
benchmark years, respectively, when calculating the historical
benchmark for an ACO in its first agreement period, rather than the
equal weights that are used in resetting the benchmark for ACOs
entering a second or subsequent agreement period. As described in the
June 2015 final rule (80 FR 32787 through 32788), the use of equal
weights when calculating the rebased benchmark was motivated by the
concern that placing higher weights on the later benchmark years would
reduce the incentive for ACOs that generate savings or that are
trending positive in their first agreement period to participate in the
program over the longer run, or reduce incentives for ACOs to achieve
savings in the final year of their first agreement period. This concern
is not relevant for ACOs in a first agreement period. Therefore, for
these ACOs, we favored maintaining the existing weights, which we
believe are more accurate because they capture the ACO's most recent
experience in the benchmark period.
We proposed to add a new provision to the regulations at Sec.
425.601 that would describe how we would establish, adjust, update and
reset historical benchmarks using factors based on regional FFS
expenditures for all ACOs for agreement periods beginning on July 1,
2019, and in subsequent years. We sought comment on this proposal.
Comment: The majority of comments we received on the proposal to
incorporate regional expenditures in an ACO's first agreement period
were generally supportive of the idea. One commenter also offered
support for the proposed implementation timeline and a few commenters
noted that they agreed with using weights of 25 and 35 for the regional
adjustment for ACOs in their initial agreement period. Some commenters,
while providing general support for the proposal, did not necessarily
agree with CMS' proposals to modify the regional adjustment or the
trend and update factors used in benchmarking discussed in sections
II.D.3.c and II.D.3.d of this final rule, respectively. One commenter
supported the proposal to incorporate regional expenditures into an
ACO's benchmark starting in its first agreement period and our proposal
to continue using weights of 10 percent, 30 percent, and 60 percent for
the first, second, and third benchmark years in an ACO's first
agreement period, respectively, but requested that CMS provide
additional clarification on how these proposals would impact the
majority of ACOs participating in the program.
Commenters provided various justifications for their support of
incorporating regional expenditures into an ACO's initial benchmark:
Several commenters noted that incorporating regional
trends would allow the benchmark to better reflect an ACO's local
environment, with a few stating such benchmarks would be more
accurate and fairer.
A few commenters noted their belief that using a blend
of ACO historical expenditures and regional expenditure data is
preferable to relying on only one or the other and supported
implementing the regional adjustment when an ACO first enters the
program rather than waiting until at least the second agreement
period. Other commenters remarked that the earlier incorporation of
regional factors into benchmarks was particularly important given
the proposed longer five-year agreement periods.
Several commenters suggested that incorporating
regional expenditures into the benchmark for an ACO's first
agreement period could improve incentives for participation among
low-cost ACOs, with some noting it could incentivize participation
among low cost providers without necessarily discouraging less
efficient providers from entering the program.
One commenter expressed the belief that incorporating a
regional adjustment in an ACO's first agreement period can correct
for issues stemming from mean reversion. They noted that a modest
positive regional adjustment could provide an incentive for
participation for low spending ACOs whose expenditure growth is
likely to increase as they regress to the mean and that a modest
negative regional adjustment could reduce potential windfall gains
that would otherwise go to high spending ACOs that are likely to
[[Page 68016]]
see slower expenditure growth without entirely removing their
incentive to participate.
Several commenters supported moving towards regional
benchmarks because it accelerated the process of aligning the Shared
Savings Program with Medicare Advantage.
One commenter generally supported inclusion of regional
expenditures in Shared Savings Program benchmarks because the Next
Generation ACO Model incorporates regional expenditures in its
benchmarking methodology.
One commenter noted that the proposed policy would
provide predictability and simplicity for ACOs as they seek to
understand the nuances of the regulatory environment.
One commenter appeared to misunderstand the proposal,
noting that it might force an ACO to ``use national trending for the
first contract rather than regional.'' They stated that using
national growth rates was a disadvantage to most ACOs and has a
disparate impact on urban and rural ACOs. The commenter urged CMS to
incorporate regional factors in determining the benchmark for an
ACO's first agreement period as well as subsequent agreement
periods.
Response: We thank commenters for their support of the proposal to
apply regional expenditures in determining the benchmark for an ACO's
first agreement period, which we are finalizing, along with the
proposed policies described in sections II.D.3.c and II.D.3.d of this
final rule. We believe that this policy will provide a greater
incentive for lower cost ACOs to participate in the program, allow
benchmarks to better reflect the local environment in which an ACO
operates, and reduce complexity by using a comparable benchmarking
methodology across all agreement periods.
Comment: Several commenters opposed incorporating regional
expenditures into an ACO's first agreement period benchmark due to
concerns about how the policy would impact incentives for higher cost
ACOs. One commenter opposed the use of a regional adjustment in an
ACO's first agreement period and recommended eliminating such
adjustments from the program's benchmarking methodology entirely. This
commenter expressed the belief that these adjustments, particularly if
implemented in an ACO's first agreement period, would lead to exit by
ACOs with spending above their region's average given the program's
voluntary nature. In their view, there is a significant risk that the
Shared Saving Program ``will degenerate into a program that is viable
only for providers that are already more efficient for their region or
serve patients who are healthier and lower-risk in ways not captured by
the HCC score.'' A few other commenters also expressed concerns that
the policy would harm ACOs that serve patients with special needs,
threatening the viability of such ACOs or making it unattractive for
ACOs to include providers and suppliers that treat such patients, with
one providing hypothetical examples to demonstrate how difficult it
would be for an ACO with costs notably higher than its region to
achieve share savings--or avoid shared losses--even if the ACO was
successful in reducing spending. Other commenters offering general
support for the proposal still warned that incorporating regionally-
adjusted benchmarks too quickly could discourage participation by high
spending health care providers, causing CMS to miss the opportunity to
realize savings while at the same time subsidizing already low-spending
providers. They urged CMS to proceed with this policy in a way that
encourages participation by high spending providers and suppliers in
this voluntary program. Another commenter encouraged CMS to monitor the
impact of the regional benchmarking methodology on participation by
provider/supplier type, and to make refinements if necessary to ensure
participation.
Response: We appreciate the concerns raised by the commenters that
incorporating regional adjustments into ACO historical benchmarks too
quickly could reduce the attractiveness of the Shared Savings Program
to ACOs that have been historically inefficient compared to their
region or that treat high cost, special needs patients. As described in
the next section, we are finalizing a modification to the schedule of
weights used in calculating the regional adjustment, which will reduce
the weight that is applied to the regional adjustment in the first
agreement period for ACOs that have higher costs than their region. We
believe that using a lower weight to determine the regional adjustment
in these circumstances will improve the business case for more higher-
cost ACOs to participate in the program.
Comment: One commenter expressed the belief that changing the
regional benchmarking methodology may deter new entrants and drive
existing ACOs to leave the program. However, it was somewhat unclear as
to whether they were opposed to the proposed changes or to the
incorporation of regional expenditures into ACOs' benchmarks in
general. They noted that ACOs in regions where spending and benchmarks
are low have little incentive to participate in the program because
they have less opportunity to reduce costs and increase savings for
CMS; however, they did not suggest an alternative approach that would
ameliorate their concerns.
Response: We believe that the extension of regional adjustments to
ACOs in their first agreement period will tend to increase incentives
for ACOs that are low cost relative to their region compared to the
current benchmarking methodology. For ACOs in a second or subsequent
agreement period, the modifications to the regional adjustment
described in section II.D.3.c. of this final rule will tend to limit
the absolute size of adjustments for ACOs that are efficient relative
to their region compared to the current policy. However, we believe
that these adjustments will continue to be generous enough to retain
participation by many existing ACOs that are efficient relative to
their region and should improve the business case for participation
among ACOs that have higher costs than their regions, especially
considering our decision in this final rule to lower the weight of the
regional adjustment for such higher cost ACOs to 15 percent in the
first agreement period (compared to 25 percent in the proposed rule).
For ACOs operating in low-cost regions whose historical costs are
comparable to their region, we believe that the modifications we are
finalizing will have a limited impact relative to the current policy.
Comment: A few commenters raised concerns about the implications of
incorporating regional factors into the calculation of benchmarks for
ACOs in rural areas. One commenter noted that regional benchmarking did
not make sense for many rural clinics because they are competing
against themselves and they quickly arrive at the limit of expenditures
they can control. Another commenter expressed concern that regional
adjustments are not accurate for rural-based health care systems. They
believe that in rural areas served by one health care system most
primary care visits are with a specialist and the assignable
beneficiary population tends to be skewed towards more costly and
complex patients. They requested that CMS expand the definition of
region to include nearby markets where physician access is more evenly
distributed and also exclude rural areas from regional adjustment,
though it was unclear whether the commenter was requesting that CMS
exclude rural counties from regional expenditure calculations or
requesting that rural ACOs be exempt from receiving a regional
adjustment to their benchmark. A different commenter perceived the
program's benchmarking
[[Page 68017]]
methodology to be flawed, explaining that it is structured to provide
bonuses to high cost providers who reduce spending while not rewarding
cost-efficient providers who enter the program and keep costs down.
They believe that the current proposals do not go far enough to address
these perceived flaws, particularly for beneficiaries in rural areas
and environments with cost-based reimbursement, such as Critical Access
Hospitals; but they did not explain why they believed the proposed
changes to be inadequate. The commenter advocated for broader changes
to Medicare payment policy for rural providers and requested that CMS
engage with rural stakeholders to further explore a benchmarking
methodology that would reflect such changes.
Response: As we have acknowledged, the incorporation of regional
factors into ACO benchmarks would have varying effects on ACOs
depending on each organization's individual circumstances. We believe
that this is also the case for ACOs operating in rural areas. As
described in section II.D.3.d of this final rule, we are finalizing our
proposed policy of using blended national and regional trend and update
factors for all ACOs, which we believe will help to mitigate concerns
about ACOs, including rural ACOs, that are dominant in their region
driving regional trends. For such ACOs, the national component of the
blend would tend to receive a high weight. For a rural ACO whose
assigned beneficiaries comprise a large share of assignable
beneficiaries in its region, we would expect the impact of the regional
adjustment on an historical benchmark to be small because the ACOs'
historical expenditures would be similar to regional expenditures. In
practice, we have observed that few of the ACOs that have received
benchmarks that incorporate regional factors under the methodology at
Sec. 425.603(c) for second agreement periods starting in 2017 and 2018
have had penetration rates higher than 50 percent and those ACOs whose
beneficiaries reside primarily in non-metropolitan areas (a proxy for
rural ACOs) have received a mix of positive and negative regional
adjustments.
We decline to modify our policies for defining an ACO's regional
service area to encompass nearby markets or to exclude counties in
which some of an ACO's assigned beneficiaries reside. We believe that
such modifications could lead to a regional expenditure value that is
not reflective of the area in which an ACO operates or may simply add
complexity to the methodology without materially changing its outcome.
We also decline to provide an exemption to the regional adjustment for
ACOs operating in rural areas or any other ACOs as we favor a
consistent, program-wide policy. We appreciate one commenter's
recommendation that we seek to better address issues related to
reimbursement of rural providers; however, we believe such issues would
require further study and are outside the scope of this final rule.
Comment: One commenter noted that while the proposed policy to
incorporate regional expenditures into the calculation of the benchmark
starting in an ACO's first agreement period might make sense in some
areas of the country, there are many areas in the state of California
where they believe that additional efficiencies cannot be realized.
They believe that providers in California are at a significant
disadvantage under this program due to the state's historically low
spending growth compared to other areas of the country. The commenter
urged CMS to consider changes for providers in such markets but did not
specify which changes they believe would remedy this issue.
Response: We have acknowledged that the program's benchmarking
methodology can have different effects on ACOs depending on whether
they are located in a high or low growth region and how their own
historical spending compares with that of their region. While the
introduction of blended national and regional trend and update factors
may reduce the first agreement period benchmark of ACOs located in
regions with below average growth compared to the current methodology
that uses only national trends, all else being equal, the blend should
help these ACOs in subsequent agreement periods in which they would
have been subject to purely regional trends under current policy.
Final Action: After considering the comments received, we are
finalizing our proposal to incorporate regional expenditures into the
benchmarking methodology starting in an ACO's first agreement period
for all ACOs entering the program for an agreement period beginning on
July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years. Under this policy we will use
almost the same methodology to determine the historical benchmarks for
ACOs in their first agreement period as for ACOs in their second or
subsequent agreement period, including the policies described in
sections II.D.3.c and II.D.3.d. that we are adopting in this final
rule. The only distinction between the methodology that will be used to
determine the historical benchmark for ACOs in their first agreement
period and those in a second or subsequent agreement period will be the
weights that are applied to the three benchmark years. We will continue
to use weights of 10 percent, 30 percent, and 60 percent to weight the
three benchmark years, respectively, when calculating the historical
benchmark for an ACO in its first agreement period, rather than the
equal weights that are used in resetting the benchmark for ACOs
entering a second or subsequent agreement period. These policies are
included in the new provision at Sec. 425.601, which will govern the
determination of historical benchmarks for all ACOs for agreement
periods starting on July 1, 2019, or in subsequent agreement periods.
We are also finalizing conforming changes to Sec. Sec. 425.602 and
425.603 to indicate that these provisions will now apply to the
determination of the historical benchmark for ACOs entering a first
agreement period on or before January 1, 2018, or ACOs entering a
second or subsequent agreement period on or before January 1, 2019,
respectively. We note that we originally proposed changes to the
regulations to indicate that Sec. 425.602 would apply to ACOs entering
a first agreement on or before January 1, 2019. However, given our
decision to forgo the application cycle for a January 1, 2019 start
date, there will be no ACOs beginning a first agreement period on that
date.
c. Modifying the Regional Adjustment
In finalizing the phase-in structure for the original regional
adjustment in the June 2016 final rule, we acknowledged that it might
be necessary to reevaluate the effects of the regional adjustment on
the Shared Savings Program and, if warranted, to modify the adjustment
through additional rulemaking. Therefore, we adopted a policy under
which the maximum weight to be applied to the adjustment would be 70
percent, unless the Secretary determines that a lower weight should be
applied, as specified through future rulemaking (see 81 FR 37969
through 32974). Relevant considerations in determining the appropriate
weight to be applied to the adjustment include, but are not limited to,
effects on net program costs; the extent of participation in the
program; and the efficiency and quality of care received by
beneficiaries.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41888), we noted that we
had revaluated the effects of the regional adjustment as part of the
regulatory impact analysis required for the proposed rule (see section
IV. of the proposed rule) and had also taken into consideration our
experience in applying the regional adjustment under
[[Page 68018]]
the policies established in the June 2016 final rule. We noted that
while we continued to believe that it is necessary to employ a
benchmarking methodology that incorporates expenditures in an ACO's
regional service area in addition to the ACO's own historical
expenditures in order to maintain or improve program sustainability, we
were concerned that, if unaltered, the regional adjustment will have
unintended consequences and adverse effects on ACO incentives as
discussed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed rule.
By design, the regional adjustment results in more generous
benchmarks for ACOs that spend below their regions. We noted in section
II.D.3.c. of the proposed rule that our initial experience with the
regional adjustment found that 80 percent of ACOs that renewed for a
second agreement period starting in 2017 received a positive
adjustment. These ACOs saw their benchmarks increase by 1.8 percent, on
average, when the adjustment was applied with the 35 percent weight,
with several ACOs seeing increases of over 5 percent, and one over 7
percent. We also noted that preliminary results for ACOs that renewed
for a second agreement period starting in 2018 showed a similar share
of ACOs receiving a positive adjustment and one ACO seeing an
adjustment of over 10 percent. We noted our concern that as the weight
applied to the regional adjustment increases, benchmarks for the ACOs
with the lowest spending relative to their region would become overly
inflated to the point where they would need to do little to change
their care practices to generate savings, which could reduce incentives
for these ACOs to improve the efficiency of care provided to
beneficiaries.
We noted that, on the other hand, the regional adjustment reduces
benchmarks for ACOs with higher spending compared to their region.
Among 14 ACOs that received a net negative regional adjustment to their
benchmark in 2017, the average reduction was 1.6 percent, with one ACO
seeing a reduction of over 7 percent. These adjustments were calculated
using only a 25 percent weight. Although preliminary results for ACOs
that started a second agreement period in 2018 showed slightly smaller
negative adjustments, on average, we were concerned that the ACOs with
the highest relative costs, some of which have targeted specific
beneficiary populations that are inherently more complex and costly
than the regional average, would find little value in remaining in the
Shared Savings Program when faced with a significantly reduced
benchmark as the weight applied to the adjustment increases.
To reduce the likelihood that the regional adjustment will have
these undesired effects, we proposed policies that would limit the
magnitude of the adjustment by reducing the weight that is applied to
the adjustment and imposing an absolute dollar limit on the adjustment.
We explained that we believe moderating the regional adjustment would
lower potential windfall gains to lower-cost ACOs and could help to
improve the incentive for higher-cost ACOs to continue to participate
in the program.
First, we proposed to amend the schedule of weights used to phase
in the regional adjustment. Consistent with our current policy, the
first time that an ACO is subject to a regional adjustment, we would
apply a weight of 35 percent if the ACO's historical spending was lower
than its region and a weight of 25 percent if the ACO's historical
spending was higher than its region. The second time that an ACO is
subject to a regional adjustment, we would apply a weight of 50 percent
if the ACO's historical spending was lower than its region and 35
percent if the ACO's historical spending was higher than its region.
The third or subsequent time that an ACO is subject to a regional
adjustment we would apply a weight of 50 percent in all cases.
We sought to make two points related to the proposed schedule of
weights clear. First, consistent with our current policy under Sec.
425.603(c)(8) for determining the adjusted benchmark for the second or
subsequent performance year of an ACO's agreement period, in
calculating an adjusted benchmark for an ACO that makes changes to its
ACO participant list or assignment methodology, we would use the same
set of weights as was used for the first performance year in the
agreement period. For example, an ACO that is subject to a weight of 25
percent in its first performance year of an agreement period would
continue to be subject to a weight of either 35 or 25 percent,
depending on whether the ACO's historical expenditures, as adjusted,
are higher or lower than its region, for any subsequent years in the
same agreement period.
Second, for renewing or re-entering ACOs (see section II.A.5.c. of
this final rule) that previously received a rebased historical
benchmark under the current benchmarking methodology adopted in the
June 2016 final rule, we would consider the agreement period the ACO is
entering upon renewal or re-entry in combination with the weight
previously applied to calculate the regional adjustment to the ACO's
benchmark in the ACO's most recent prior agreement period to determine
the weight that would apply in the new agreement period. We included
several examples of the application of these policies (83 FR 41889). In
the final action statement for this section of the final rule we
provide updated examples based on the policies we are finalizing.
The weights included in the proposed new schedule were chosen in
part to maintain consistency with the current schedule, which already
includes the 25, 35, and 50 percent values. Furthermore, we stated our
belief that using 50 percent as the maximum weight would be appropriate
because it strikes an even balance between rewarding an ACO for
attainment (efficiencies already demonstrated at the start of the
agreement period) versus improvement during the agreement period over
its past historical performance.
We also noted that while this proposal would reduce the maximum
regional adjustment as compared to current regulations, our proposal to
extend the regional adjustment to ACOs in their first agreement period
in the program would increase the number of years that an ACO would be
subject to the adjustment. Thus, the lower maximum weight in later
years would be balanced to some extent by an earlier phase-in.
Based on the magnitude of regional adjustments observed in the
first 2 years under the existing rebasing methodology, which were
calculated using the lowest weights under the current phase-in
schedule, we were concerned that reducing the maximum weight on the
adjustment may not be sufficient to guard against the undesired effects
of large positive or negative regional adjustments on incentives faced
by individual ACOs. Therefore, to complement the proposed changes to
the schedule of weights used to phase-in the regional adjustment, we
also considered options for imposing a cap on the dollar amount of the
regional adjustment. We believed that limiting regional adjustments for
ACOs that are particularly low- or high-cost relative to their regions,
would better align incentives for these ACOs with program goals, while
continuing to reward ACOs that have already attained efficiency
relative to their regional service areas.
We thus also proposed to cap the regional adjustment amount using a
flat dollar amount equal to 5 percent of national per capita
expenditures for Parts A and B services under the original Medicare FFS
program in BY3 for assignable beneficiaries identified
[[Page 68019]]
for the 12-month calendar year corresponding to BY3 using data from the
CMS OACT. The cap would be calculated and applied by Medicare
enrollment type (ESRD, disabled, aged/dual eligible, aged/non-dual
eligible) and would apply for both positive and negative adjustments.
We explained our belief that defining the cap based on national per
capita expenditures would offer simplicity and transparency in that,
for each enrollment type, a single value would be applicable for all
ACOs with the same agreement start date. When selecting the level of
the proposed cap, we aimed to choose a level that would only constrain
the adjustment for the most extreme ACOs. When looking at the
distribution of observed final regional adjustments among the 73 ACOs
that received a rebased benchmark in 2017, we found that the amount of
the regional adjustment calculated for around 95 percent of these ACOs
would fall under a symmetrical cap equal to 5 percent of national FFS
expenditures. We also noted our belief that capping the amount of the
regional adjustment at this level would continue to provide a
meaningful reward for ACOs that are efficient relative to their region,
while reducing windfall gains for the ACOs with the lowest relative
costs. Similarly, capping the amount of a negative regional adjustment
at this level would continue to impose a penalty on ACOs that are less
efficient relative to their region, but by guarding against extremely
high negative adjustments, should increase the program's ability to
retain ACOs that serve complex patients and that may need some
additional time to lower costs.
We explained that to implement the cap, we would continue to
calculate the difference between the average per capita regional amount
and the per capita rebased benchmark amount for each Medicare
enrollment type. We would continue to multiply the difference for each
enrollment type by the appropriate weight (determined using the
schedule described previously) in order to determine the uncapped
adjustment for each Medicare enrollment type. For positive adjustments,
the final adjustment amount for a particular enrollment type would be
set equal to the lesser of the uncapped adjustment or a dollar amount
equal to 5 percent of the national per capita FFS expenditures for
assignable beneficiaries in that enrollment type for BY3. For negative
adjustments, the final adjustment amount for a particular enrollment
type would be set equal to the greater (that is, the smaller negative
value) of either the uncapped adjustment or the negative of 5 percent
of the national per capita FFS expenditures for assignable
beneficiaries in that enrollment type for BY3. We would then apply the
final adjustment for each enrollment type to the benchmark expenditures
for that enrollment type in the same manner that we currently apply the
uncapped regional adjustment. Table 13 provides an illustrative example
of how the final adjustment would be determined.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.017
In this example, the ACO's positive adjustment for ESRD would be
constrained by the cap because the uncapped adjustment amount exceeds 5
percent of the national assignable FFS expenditure for the ESRD
population. Likewise, the ACO's negative adjustment for the disabled
population would also be reduced by the cap. The adjustments for aged/
dual and aged/non-dual eligible populations would not be affected.
We also considered an alternative approach under which the cap
would be applied at the aggregate level rather than at the Medicare
enrollment type level. Under this approach, we would calculate regional
adjustments by Medicare enrollment type as we do currently and then
determine the weighted average of these adjustments, using the
enrollment distribution in the ACO's BY3 assigned beneficiary
population, to arrive at a single aggregate regional adjustment. We
would then determine a weighted average of national per capita FFS
expenditures for assignable beneficiaries across the four enrollment
types, again using the enrollment distribution in the ACO's BY3
assigned beneficiary population, to arrive at a single aggregate
national expenditure value. We would calculate a symmetrical aggregate
cap equal to positive or negative 5 percent of the aggregate national
expenditure value and compare this cap to the uncapped aggregate
regional adjustment amount to determine the final aggregate regional
adjustment. Specifically, if the uncapped aggregate regional adjustment
amount is above the aggregate cap, then the final aggregate regional
adjustment would equal the cap. However, if the uncapped aggregate
regional adjustment amount is below the aggregate cap, then the final
aggregate regional adjustment would equal the uncapped regional
adjustment amount. The regional adjustment calculated for each Medicare
enrollment type would then be multiplied by the ratio of the final
aggregate regional adjustment to the uncapped aggregate regional
adjustment. If the uncapped aggregate regional adjustment exceeds the
[[Page 68020]]
aggregate cap, this ratio will be less than one and the regional
adjustment for each Medicare enrollment type would be reduced by the
same percentage. If the uncapped aggregate regional adjustment is less
than or equal to the aggregate cap, the ratio will equal one and the
regional adjustment would not be reduced for any Medicare enrollment
type.
For example, if the uncapped aggregate regional adjustment amount
was $550 and the aggregate cap was $500, the final aggregate regional
adjustment would be $500. The regional adjustment for each Medicare
enrollment type would be multiplied by a ratio of $500 to $550 or
0.909. This is equivalent to reducing the adjustment for each
enrollment type by 9.1 percent. As another example, if the uncapped
aggregate regional adjustment was $450 and the aggregate cap remained
at $500, the final aggregate regional adjustment would be $450 because
it is less than the aggregate cap. The regional adjustment for each
Medicare enrollment type would be multiplied by a ratio equal to 1, and
thus would not be reduced.
Initial modeling found the two methods to be comparable for most
ACOs but suggested that our proposed approach (capping the regional
adjustment at the Medicare enrollment type level) is somewhat more
effective at limiting larger upside or downside adjustments. We
explained that this was likely because the aggregate approach smooths
out variation in adjustments across individual enrollment types. For
example, for some ACOs, large positive adjustments in one enrollment
type may be offset by smaller positive adjustments, or negative
adjustments in other enrollment types under the aggregate approach. We
explained that the proposed approach also aligns with our current
benchmark calculations, which are done by Medicare enrollment type, and
provides greater accuracy and transparency. Under this approach, the
cap would only reduce the magnitude of the adjustment for a particular
enrollment type if the original uncapped value of the adjustment is
relatively large. This would not necessarily be the case under the
aggregate approach, where adjustments for all enrollment types, large
or small, would be reduced if the aggregate regional adjustment exceeds
the aggregate cap.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41890), we expressed our
belief that imposing a cap on the magnitude of the adjustment, coupled
with the proposed changes to the schedule of weights used in applying
the regional adjustment, would help to reduce windfall gains to low-
spending ACOs and would also help to reduce the incentive for higher
spending ACOs to leave the program by limiting the negative adjustments
these ACOs will experience. We anticipated that the proposed cap on the
regional adjustment would provide stronger incentives for higher
spending ACOs to remain in the program (by reducing the magnitude of
the benchmark decrease associated with negative regional adjustments)
than disincentives for lower spending ACOs. We noted that we expected
this latter group would still be sufficiently rewarded by the regional
adjustment under the proposed approach to encourage their continued
participation in the program. However, we also noted our belief that by
reducing the windfall gains for these ACOs, the proposed constraints on
the regional adjustment would lead to greater incentives for these ACOs
to further reduce spending in order to increase their shared savings
payments.
In summary, we proposed both to modify the schedule of weights used
to phase in the regional adjustment and to impose a cap on the dollar
amount of the adjustment. For the first agreement period that an ACO is
subject to the regional adjustment, we proposed to apply a weight of 35
percent if the ACO's historical spending was lower than its region and
a weight of 25 percent if the ACO's historical spending was higher than
its region. For the second agreement period, we proposed to apply
weights of 50 percent and 35 percent for lower and higher spending
ACOs, respectively. For the third or subsequent agreement period, we
proposed to apply a weight of 50 percent for all ACOs. Additionally, we
would impose a symmetrical cap on the regional adjustment equal to
positive or negative 5 percent of the national per capita FFS
expenditures for assignable beneficiaries for each enrollment type. We
proposed to apply the modified schedule of weights and the cap on the
regional adjustment for agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019,
and in subsequent years. The policies proposed in section II.D.3.c of
the proposed rule were included in the proposed new provision at Sec.
425.601, which would govern the determination of historical benchmarks
for all ACOs for agreement periods starting on July 1, 2019, and in
subsequent years. We sought comment on these proposals, as well as the
alternative capping methodology considered. We also sought comment on
the proposed timeline for application of these proposals.
Comment: One commenter supported the proposed maximum weight of 50
percent on the regional adjustment, stating that they agreed with CMS'
reasoning behind the proposed policy and noted that it would also help
to ensure that smaller Medicare markets and larger markets with greater
ACO concentration would sustain competitive pressure, both between ACOs
within a particular market and between the Shared Savings Program and
traditional Medicare FFS payment polices, across multiple agreement
periods.
However, nearly all of the other commenters that addressed our
proposals to modify the regional adjustment opposed reducing the
maximum weight on the regional adjustment from 70 percent to 50
percent. One commenter described the proposal to lower the maximum
weight as premature. They noted that the current policy was only
finalized two years ago and, given the existing phase-in schedule, no
ACO has yet reached a weight of 70 percent. Several commenters
expressed the belief that this policy would penalize ACOs that have
performed well or put them at a competitive disadvantage, with some
commenters disputing CMS' characterization of large positive regional
adjustments as potential windfalls. One commenter suggested that
lowering the maximum weight could reduce recruitment and retention of
high value and experienced ACOs. Another commenter stated that this
proposal, combined with the proposal to cap the regional adjustment,
would make it more difficult for ACOs to earn shared savings that they
could then use to cover the incremental costs of accountable care. One
commenter favored retaining the 70 percent maximum adjustment because
they believe it would lead to greater alignment between the Shared
Savings Program and Medicare Advantage given the regional nature of the
benchmarking and bid process in that program. A few commenters
suggested that this proposal was an example of CMS ``changing the
rules,'' which, one commenter noted, can erode confidence in the
program. Another commenter stated they did not support the proposed
modifications to the regional adjustment; but, in their justification
of this position they appeared to be conflating the proposed
modifications the regional adjustment with the proposal to use a blend
of national and regional factors to establish and update the benchmark.
Response: We appreciate commenters' feedback related to our
proposal to reduce the maximum weight of the regional adjustment from
70 percent to 50 percent. We view the regional
[[Page 68021]]
adjustment as providing a more accurate benchmark that recognizes ACOs
that have attained efficiency relative to their region as well as a
means of incentivizing these ACOs to participate in the program and
further reduce spending. We also recognize that greater alignment of
the Shared Savings Program with Medicare Advantage is a shared goal
among a number of commenters. However, based on our first two years of
experience in applying regional adjustments in the calculation of ACO
historical benchmarks, we continue to believe that the proposed limit
on the regional adjustment for ACOs that are low cost relative to their
region will help to ensure that these ACOs are not in a position where
they can earn shared savings with little to no additional reductions in
cost, a situation that we believe would arise if the weight placed on
the adjustment is permitted to rise to 70 percent, as provided under
the current schedule.
We also continue to believe that many ACOs would still have an
incentive to participate in the program with a maximum weight of 50
percent on the regional adjustment. This belief is influenced by our
experience with the Next Generation ACO Model. The model provided for
up to a 1 percent increase to benchmarks for ACOs with lower spending
compared to their region. ACOs with lower spending than their region
elected to participate in the model, and overall, the model showed that
beneficiaries aligned to Next Generation ACOs had lower spending than
other fee-for-service beneficiaries who were not aligned with an ACO in
their region, as noted by the first year evaluation (https://innovation.cms.gov/Files/reports/nextgenaco-firstannrpt.pdf). The
policies we are finalizing in this rule will provide a significantly
larger adjustment than that tested by the Next Generation ACO Model,
even when accounting for the maximum 50 percent weight applied to the
regional adjustments in future agreement periods and the symmetrical
cap equal to 5 percent of national per capita expenditures for Parts A
and B services for assignable beneficiaries.
Comment: A number of commenters suggested alternative phase-in
schedules or levels for the weights applied to the regional adjustment:
Several commenters suggested the following schedule of
weights for ACOs that have lower or higher expenditures,
respectively, relative to their region: 30 or 25 percent in first
agreement period in which the ACO is subject to the regional
adjustment, 50 or 35 percent in second agreement period receiving
adjustment; 70 or 50 percent in third agreement period receiving
adjustment; and 70 for all ACOs in the fourth and subsequent
agreement periods. Another commenter also recommended using weights
of 70 or 50 percent in the third agreement period in which an ACO is
subject to the regional adjustment but did not comment on which
weights should be applied for other agreement periods;
One commenter recommended that CMS implement a more
gradual phase-in than the proposed approach and provide maximum
flexibility and choices for ACOs. They suggested applying a weight
that increases over the course of an ACO's first five-year agreement
period with a regional adjustment, such as a 10 percent weight in
the first two years, 20 percent in the second two years, and 30
percent in the final year;
A few commenters recommended that CMS adopt the
following phase-in schedule: 35 or 25 percent in the first agreement
period with a regional adjustment, 60 or 45 percent in the second
agreement with a regional adjustment, and 70 percent in the third
and all subsequent agreement periods with a regional adjustment. The
same commenters also recommended that CMS consider an alternative
under which an ACO would have an option to gradually incorporate
regional expenditure data into their benchmarks, with an increase of
10 percent annually during an agreement period.
A few commenters recommended raising the maximum weight
on the adjustment to 75 percent.
As described in section II.D.3.b of this final rule, several
commenters had concerns that incorporating regional adjustments in an
ACO's first agreement period would disincentivize participation among
ACOs whose costs have historically been high relative to their region,
with some advising CMS not to incorporate such adjustments too quickly.
MedPAC noted its belief that blending ACO-specific historical costs
with regional FFS costs through the application of the regional
adjustment is a reasonable approach, but also suggested that the share
of the benchmark attributed to regional costs should start low and be
refined as program results are evaluated over time. Another commenter
also called for gradually incorporating regional data into benchmarks
in order to better account for the specific characteristics of the
patient population of each individual ACO.
One commenter recommended eliminating regional adjustments that
blend ACO historical spending with regional spending. The commenter
presented evidence to suggest that regional adjustments led to the exit
from the program of ACOs with a first agreement period ending on
December 31, 2016, and spending above their region's average. They
expressed concern that the pattern of selective participation would
grow only worse if ACOs are required to assume downside risk as
negative regional adjustments would cause some higher cost ACOs to face
certain shared losses. They believe that the proposals to reduce the
maximum weight on the regional adjustment to 50 percent and to cap the
amount of the adjustment at 5 percent of national Medicare FFS
expenditures would do little to mitigate the risk that the program
would become viable only for ACOs serving healthier patients. In lieu
of a regional adjustment, the commenter recommended incentivizing
efficiency relative to an ACO's region by increasing the sharing rates
for lower cost ACOs.
Response: We appreciate commenters' suggestions for alternatives to
the proposed phase-in schedule and weight levels for the regional
adjustment. We also appreciate the recommendation that we incentivize
efficiency among lower cost ACOs through modifications to the sharing
rate as opposed to through a regional adjustment, but we believe this
suggestion falls outside the scope of policies contemplated in the
August 2018 proposed rule.
We continue to believe that reducing the maximum weight of the
regional adjustment from 70 percent to 50 percent is appropriate in
order to promote continuous improvement and prevent potential windfall
gains to lower cost ACOs. Further, and as previously described based on
our experience with a more modest positive adjustment tested in the
Next Generation ACO Model for ACOs shown to be efficient relative to
their region, we are not convinced by the comments that reducing the
weight to this level would significantly deter lower cost ACOs from
participating in the program.
However, based on comments received on the proposals described in
this section and in section II.D.3.b of this final rule, we are
concerned that our proposed policies for modifying the regional
adjustment may not sufficiently improve incentives for ACOs that are
high cost relative to their region to enter or remain in the program.
In particular, we are concerned by evidence presented by one commenter
regarding the selective exit by certain ACOs with a first agreement
period ending on December 31, 2016, and by the possibility raised by a
few commenters that a negative regional adjustment could, by itself,
cause some ACOs to owe shared losses. We believe that it is important
to maintain incentives for participation among higher cost ACOs, as
these ACOs can offer high potential for savings for the Trust Funds
and, in some cases, may serve complex, high-risk patients who would
benefit from improved care management. To that
[[Page 68022]]
end, we are therefore finalizing a modified schedule of weights that
would slow the phase-in of the regional adjustment for these ACOs
relative to our original proposal. Specifically, for the first
agreement period that an ACO is subject to a regional adjustment, we
will apply a weight of 15 percent if the ACO's historical spending was
higher than its region, for the second agreement period that an ACO is
subject to a regional adjustment we will apply a weight of 25 percent
if the ACO was higher than its region, for the third agreement period
that an ACO is subject to a regional adjustment we will apply a weight
of 35 percent if the ACO was higher than its region, and for the fourth
and all subsequent agreement periods that an ACO is subject to a
regional adjustment we will apply a weight of 50 percent. In the final
action statement for this section we provide examples of how this
policy would be applied for renewing or re-entering ACOs that were
previously subject to a regional adjustment under the current
methodology.
We selected 15 percent as the initial weight of the regional
adjustment for ACOs that are higher spending than their region in order
to balance our concerns about maintaining participation incentives with
maintaining incentives to reduce spending. In making this selection, we
performed an analysis in which we examined, ex post facto, what level
of weight applied to regional adjustments for higher cost ACOs entering
the program in performance year 2014 would have produced roughly
comparable average shared savings payments to those earned on average
by lower cost ACOs entering the program in same performance year. A
simulated 15 percent weight for higher cost ACOs resulted in the
desired balance with shared savings to lower cost ACOs. This analysis
supports our belief that reducing the weight that will be applied to a
negative regional adjustment in an ACO's first agreement period will
preserve a reasonable business case for participation by higher cost
ACOs and improve the incentive for higher cost ACOs to enter the
program and that slowing the phase-in of the weights will help to
retain these ACOs in subsequent agreement periods. We believe increased
participation among such ACOs will lead to coordinated care for more
Medicare beneficiaries and generate additional savings for the Medicare
Trust Funds.
Comment: Commenters had mixed reactions to the proposed symmetrical
cap on the regional adjustment, with a majority requesting that CMS
impose a higher cap or no cap at all. Among commenters that opposed
capping the adjustment, one commenter described the proposed 5 percent
level as arbitrary and a few others expressed the belief that CMS
should not intervene in the market in this manner and should allow
competition among ACOs and other providers to address and eventually
mitigate outlier situations. Several commenters suggested that limiting
the magnitude of the regional adjustment would undermine policy goals,
with one noting that the cap could reduce the incentive for ACOs to
drive costs lower. One commenter expressed the belief that the proposed
cap on the regional adjustment is based on the false assumption that
low Medicare expenditures are due to an inordinately healthy population
or extremely efficient healthcare delivery system, when they may in
fact be due to a lack of patient access to appropriate services as they
explain is the case in the state of Hawaii. This commenter believes
that the program's current regional benchmarking methodology would
appropriately assist ACOs in Hawaii with achieving savings and reward
these ACOs for seeking to improve upon the already low cost of care per
beneficiary.
A few commenters that opposed limiting the regional adjustment
recommended that if CMS decides to move forward with the proposed cap,
the agency should increase the level of the cap. Some suggested using a
cap of positive or negative 7 percent. Another commenter recommended an
8 percent cap applied at the aggregate level rather than at the
enrollment type level. They noted that this higher cap would allow for
an efficiency return similar to what Medicare Advantage plans can
receive net of their administrative costs for administering the plan
(around 7 percent). This commenter also noted that if CMS were choosing
between a policy to cap the regional adjustment at 5 percent and a
policy to limit the weights on the adjustment, they would prefer that
CMS limit the weight on the adjustment and either eliminate or raise
the cap. Several other commenters appeared to support the idea of a cap
on the regional adjustment, but also recommended that CMS consider
raising the level of the cap with specific suggestions ranging from 7
percent to 10 percent. One commenter noted that they understood CMS'
rationale in wanting to mitigate the effects of excessive regional
adjustments but believe that such adjustments can benefit a region by
leveling costs across health care providers within the region as more
organizations transition to value-based care and can provide an
incentive for high-cost ACOs to decrease costs and for low-cost
organizations to join efforts towards furnishing value-based care.
Others believed a higher cap would be sufficient to ``control for
outliers.''
By contrast, other commenters supported the proposed 5 percent cap
on the regional adjustment or requested that the cap be made even more
stringent. One commenter expressed the belief that the proposed cap
would reduce the current disincentive for ACOs serving complex, frail,
and functionally limited populations to continue in the program and
another noted that it would ``control for outliers.'' One commenter
recommended that CMS adopt a lower cap than 5 percent, stating that
this lower cap would be beneficial for ACOs serving complex and costly
populations whose expenditures are not fully predicted by risk scores.
Several commenters agreed with the proposed symmetrical cap of 5
percent of national Medicare FFS expenditures but requested that CMS
incentivize ACOs to take on more risk by providing ACOs in two sided
models with an option to use national benchmarks instead of benchmarks
that incorporate regional factors. They believe this option would be
desirable for ACOs in historically low-cost regions that would
otherwise not be willing to take on risk. A few other commenters that
did not necessarily support the proposed 5 percent cap also suggested
that CMS allow use of national rather than regional factors to
determine the benchmark for physician-led ACOs or ACOs in small markets
dominated by one or two health systems.
Response: We are finalizing our proposal to implement a symmetrical
cap equal to 5 percent of national per capita FFS expenditures for
assignable beneficiaries for each enrollment type. We recognize that
there are tradeoffs in adopting any cap and that limiting the magnitude
of positive adjustments could reduce incentives for participation or
further cost reduction efforts among ACOs that have low costs, whether
due to efficiency, patient mix, or limited patient access to services.
However, we continue to believe that a symmetrical 5 percent cap on the
regional adjustment will protect the Medicare Trust Funds from
excessive positive adjustments and will improve incentives for
participation among higher-cost ACOs, particularly when combined with
the modified schedule of weights that we are adopting in this rule,
which slows the phase-in of the regional adjustment for ACOs with
historical costs above their region.
[[Page 68023]]
Additionally, we are not contemplating policies that would allow
certain ACOs to move to a benchmark that incorporates national rather
than regional factors at this time. Given the existing variations in
expenditures between regions, we believe that the use of regional
factors in determining the benchmarks for all ACOs, will ensure that
these benchmarks better reflect the specific circumstances each ACO
faces.
Comment: One commenter asserted that CMS did not provide convincing
evidence that the proposed modifications to the regional adjustment
would strike the appropriate balance between competing objectives,
including providing incentives for ACOs to reduce spending (by reducing
the impact of current spending on future benchmarks) and for efficient
ACOs to extend participation, addressing mean reversion, and reducing
disincentives for higher cost ACOs to participate. The commenter noted
that the appropriate size of the adjustment may vary over time, just as
the primary rationale for an adjustment changes over time. The
commenter explained that in an ACO's first agreement period the primary
rationale for an adjustment is to address mean reversion and in later
agreement periods the primary rationale is to reduce the link between
an ACO's current performance and future benchmarks, thus providing an
incentive for ACOs to continue to reduce spending. Furthermore, the
commenter encouraged CMS to conduct additional analysis and offered
suggestions for what that analysis might entail and recommended that
the agency refine its proposals for modifying the regional adjustment,
if warranted.
Response: We appreciate this commenter's input on the factors that
should be considered when determining the appropriate magnitude of the
regional adjustment, as well as the suggestions for additional
analyses. We agree with the commenter that determining the appropriate
magnitude of the regional adjustment involves weighing different
considerations such as how to incentivize both high and low cost ACOs
to participate in the program and reduce spending and how to avoid
making windfall payments to ACOs. We believe that the changes we are
adopting in this rule attempt to balance these various concerns. We
will monitor and evaluate the impact of the changes that we are making
the regional adjustment in this final rule, and as we gain experience
may propose additional refinements through future notice and comment
rulemaking, if warranted.
Comment: We received few comments on our proposal to apply the
proposed cap at the enrollment type level. One commenter expressed
support for this proposal, stating that this approach would best serve
to limit the most extreme adjustments to ACO benchmarks and also aligns
with the current method for calculating ACO benchmarks. Another
commenter would prefer CMS to apply the proposed 5 percent cap at the
aggregate level. This commenter noted that when applied at the
enrollment type level, the proposed approach would effectively apply a
cap of less than 5 percent, in aggregate, if any one of the four
categories is below the 5 percent cap. The commenter believes this
result would reduce incentives for ACOs to perform well.
Response: As we described in the proposed rule, our analysis found
that implementing the cap at the aggregate level rather than by
enrollment type as proposed would have little impact for most ACOs, but
we acknowledge that for some ACOs the proposed approach would be
somewhat more stringent. We continue to prefer the enrollment type-
level approach for this reason as we believe it will better allow us to
meet of our goals of reducing potential windfalls and improving
incentives for higher cost ACOs. This approach also aligns more closely
with other benchmark calculations, as noted by one commenter. We are
finalizing our proposal to apply the cap separately for each enrollment
type.
Comment: A few commenters stressed the importance of careful risk
adjustment when combining an ACO's historical expenditures with
regional average expenditures through a regional adjustment; however,
one commenter noted that risk adjustment will always be inadequate to
some degree. While this commenter did not agree with using regional
adjustments at the current time, they suggested that if regional
adjustments are used in the future, CMS should implement additional
measures to ensure that ACOs are not penalized for serving higher-risk
patients. In particular, the commenter suggested offering ACOs a per-
beneficiary care management fee that is higher for higher-risk
patients.
Response: We agree with these commenters that it is important to
adjust for differences in health status between an ACO's assigned
beneficiary population and the assignable beneficiary population in its
region when calculating and applying the regional adjustment to the
historical benchmark, which is why in the June 2016 final rule (81 FR
37967) we finalized a policy of using full CMS-HCC risk adjustment for
this purpose. We appreciate the commenter's suggestion that we adopt
further measures to ensure that ACOs are not penalized for serving
higher risk patients; however, we believe that their recommendation of
offering a per-beneficiary care management fee is outside the scope of
the policies addressed in the proposed rule.
Comment: Several commenters recommended modifying the regional
adjustment by removing an ACO's own assigned beneficiaries from the
regional expenditure amount used to calculate the adjustment. One
commenter recommended revising the definition of an ACO's regional
service area to include only counties where at least one percent of an
ACO's assigned beneficiaries reside to reduce complexity and provide a
better reflection of an ACO's regional service area. Another commenter
requested that the regional comparison be based on the FFS population
because they note that their ACO drives their regional market.
Response: In the June 2016 final rule, CMS made the policy decision
to calculate regional expenditures based on all assignable FFS
beneficiaries in an ACO's regional service area, including
beneficiaries assigned to that ACO or any ACO (see 81 FR 37960). We
discussed in the August 2018 proposed rule some of our ongoing concerns
about a policy that would exclude ACO-assigned beneficiaries from these
calculations (see section II.D.3.d of the proposed rule). These
concerns include the potential for bias due to small sample sizes or
differences in the spending and utilization patterns between ACO-
assigned and non-assigned beneficiaries, the potential incentive for
ACOs to avoid high risk beneficiaries, and greater operational
complexity. In the June 2016 final rule, we also discussed our
rationale for including in the definition an ACO's regional service
area all counties in which at least one assigned beneficiary resides
(81 FR 37959). We believe this approach is necessary to accurately
reflect the diversity of the ACO's assigned beneficiary population and
provide a complete picture of the ACO's regional service area. We are
unclear if the commenter requesting a comparison based on the FFS
population is requesting that the regional adjustment be based on a
comparison between the ACO's own historical expenditures and national
FFS expenditures or between the ACO's own historical expenditures and
regional expenditures based on all FFS beneficiaries rather than
assignable beneficiaries. We did not contemplate either approach in the
proposed rule, as we did not propose any changes to the population used
in the regional
[[Page 68024]]
adjustment calculation. Accordingly, we decline to make any changes to
our current policy of calculating regional expenditures based on all
assignable beneficiaries in an ACO's regional service area, including
beneficiaries assigned to that ACO or any other ACO. However, as
described in section II.D.3.d. of this final rule, ACOs whose assigned
beneficiaries comprise a large share of their regional assignable
populations will receive a higher weight on the national component of
the blended trend and update factors used in benchmark calculations.
Final Action: After considering the comments received, we are
finalizing with modification our proposal to modify the schedule of
weights used to phase in the regional adjustment and are finalizing, as
proposed, the proposal to impose a cap on the dollar amount of the
adjustment. For the first agreement period that an ACO is subject to
the regional adjustment, we will apply a weight of 35 percent if the
ACO's historical spending was lower than its region and a weight of 15
percent if the ACO's historical spending was higher than its region.
For the second agreement period, we will apply weights of 50 percent
and 25 percent for lower and higher spending ACOs, respectively. For
the third agreement period, we will apply weights of 50 percent and 35
percent, respectively. For the fourth or subsequent agreement period,
we will apply a weight of 50 percent for all ACOs. Additionally, we
will impose a symmetrical cap on the regional adjustment equal to
positive or negative 5 percent of the national per capita FFS
expenditures for assignable beneficiaries for each enrollment type.
We proposed to apply the modified schedule of weights and the cap
on the regional adjustment for agreement periods beginning on July 1,
2019, and in subsequent years. These policies will be included in a new
provision of the regulations at Sec. 425.601, which will govern the
determination of historical benchmarks for all ACOs for agreement
periods starting on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years.
We note that for renewing or re-entering ACOs (see section
II.A.5.c. of this final rule) that previously received a rebased
historical benchmark under the current benchmarking methodology set
forth in Sec. 425.603, we will consider the agreement period the ACO
is entering upon renewal or re-entry in combination with the weight
previously applied to calculate the regional adjustment to the ACO's
benchmark in the ACO's most recent prior agreement period to determine
the weight that will apply in the new agreement period. For example, an
ACO that was subject to a weight of 35 or 25 percent in its second
agreement period in the Shared Savings Program (first agreement period
subject to a regional adjustment) under the current benchmarking
methodology that enters its third agreement period in the program
(second agreement period subject to a regional adjustment) would, under
the policies we are adopting in this final rule, be subject to a weight
of 50 or 25 percent. By contrast, if the same ACO terminated during its
second agreement period and subsequently re-enters the program, the ACO
would face a weight of 35 or 15 percent until the start of its next
agreement period. For a new ACO identified as a re-entering ACO because
greater than 50 percent of its ACO participants have recent prior
participation in the same ACO, we will consider the weight most
recently applied to calculate the regional adjustment to the benchmark
for the ACO in which the majority of the new ACO's participants were
participating previously.
d. Modifying the Methodology for Calculating Growth Rates Used in
Establishing, Resetting, and Updating the Benchmark
As discussed previously, we believe that using regional
expenditures to trend forward BY1 and BY2 to BY3 in the calculation of
the historical benchmark and to update the benchmark to the performance
year has the advantage of producing more accurate benchmarks. Regional
trend and update factors allow us to better capture the cost experience
in the ACO's region, the health status and socio-economic dynamics of
the regional population, and location-specific Medicare payments when
compared to using national FFS expenditures. However, in the August
2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41891) we acknowledged the concern raised by
stakeholders that the use of regional trend or update factors may
affect ACOs' incentives to reduce spending growth or to continue
participation in the program, particularly in circumstances where an
ACO serves a high proportion of beneficiaries in select counties making
up its regional service area. For such an ACO, a purely regional trend
will be more influenced by the ACO's own expenditure patterns, making
it more difficult for the ACO to outperform its benchmark and
conflicting with our goal to move ACOs away from benchmarks based
solely on their own historical costs. We therefore considered options
that would continue to incorporate regional expenditures into trend and
update factors while still protecting incentives for ACOs that serve a
high proportion of the Medicare FFS beneficiaries in their regional
service area.
One approach, supported by a number of stakeholders commenting on
the 2016 proposed rule, would be to exclude an ACO's own assigned
beneficiaries from the population used to compute regional
expenditures. However, as we explained in the June 2016 final rule (81
FR 37959 through 37960), we believe that such an approach would create
potential bias due to the potential for small sample sizes and
differences in the spending and utilization patterns between ACO-
assigned and non-assigned beneficiaries. The latter could occur, for
example, if an ACO tends to focus on a specialized beneficiary
population. We are also concerned that excluding an ACO's own assigned
beneficiaries from the population could provide ACOs with an incentive
to influence the assignment process by seeking to provide more care to
healthy beneficiaries and less care to more costly beneficiaries. Given
these concerns, in developing the proposals for the August 2018
proposed rule we chose to focus on alternative options that would
address stakeholder concerns by using a combination of national and
regional factors.
The first approach we considered would use a blend of national and
regional growth rates to trend forward BY1 and BY2 to BY3 when
establishing or resetting an ACO's historical benchmark (referred to as
the national-regional blend). By incorporating a national trend factor
that is more independent of an ACO's own performance, we believe that
the national-regional blend would reduce the influence of the ACO's
assigned beneficiaries on the ultimate trend factor applied. It would
also lead to greater symmetry between the Shared Savings Program and
Medicare Advantage which, among other adjustments, applies a national
projected trend to update county-level expenditures.
Under this approach, the national-regional blend would be
calculated as a weighted average of national FFS and regional trend
factors, where the weight assigned to the national component would
represent the share of assignable beneficiaries in the ACO's regional
service area that are assigned to the ACO, calculated as described in
section II.D.3.d of the proposed rule. The weight assigned to the
regional component would be equal to 1 minus the national weight. As an
ACO's penetration in its region increases, a higher weight would be
placed on the national component of the national-regional blend and a
lower
[[Page 68025]]
weight on the regional component, reducing the extent to which the
trend factors reflect the ACO's own expenditure history.
The national component of the national-regional blend would be
trend factors computed for each Medicare enrollment type using per
capita FFS expenditures for the national assignable beneficiary
population. These trend factors would be calculated in the same manner
as the national trend factors used to trend benchmark year expenditures
for ACOs in a first agreement period under the current regulations. For
example, the national trend factor for the aged/non-dual population for
BY1 would be equal to BY3 per capita FFS expenditures among the
national aged/non-dual assignable population divided by BY1 per capita
FFS expenditures among the national aged/non-dual assignable
population. Consistent with our current approach, the per capita FFS
expenditures used in these calculations would not be explicitly risk-
adjusted. By using risk ratios based on risk scores renormalized to the
national assignable population, as described in section II.D.2. of this
final rule, we are already controlling for changes in risk in the
national assignable population elsewhere in the benchmark calculations,
rendering further risk adjustment of the national trend factors
unnecessary.
The regional component of the national-regional blend would be
trend factors computed for each Medicare enrollment type based on the
weighted average of risk-adjusted county FFS expenditures for
assignable beneficiaries, including assigned beneficiaries, in the
ACO's regional service area. These trend factors would be computed in
the same manner as the regional trend factors used to trend benchmark
year expenditures for ACOs that enter a second or subsequent agreement
period in 2017 or later years under the current regulations. The
regional trend factors reflect changes in expenditures within given
counties over time, as well shifts in the geographic distribution of an
ACO's assigned beneficiary population. This is due to the fact that
regional expenditures for each year are calculated as the weighted
average of county-level expenditures for that year where the weight for
a given county is the proportion of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries
residing in that county in that year.
The weights used to blend the national and regional components
would be calculated separately for each Medicare enrollment type using
data for BY3. To calculate the national weights, we would first
calculate for each enrollment type the share of assignable
beneficiaries that are assigned to the ACO in each county in the ACO's
regional service area. We would then weight each county's share by the
proportion of the ACO's total assigned beneficiary population in that
enrollment type residing in that county to obtain the regional share.
This weighting approach mirrors the methodology used to calculate
regional expenditures, as it gives higher precedence to counties where
more of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries reside when determining the
ACO's overall penetration in its region.
As an example, assume an ACO has 11,000 assigned beneficiaries with
aged/non-dual eligible enrollment status and the ACO's regional service
area consists of two counties, County A and County B. There were 10,000
assignable aged/non-dual beneficiaries residing in County A in BY3,
with 9,000 assigned to the ACO in that year. There were 12,000
assignable aged/non-dual beneficiaries residing in County B with 2,000
assigned to the ACO. The weight for the national component of the
blended trend factor for the aged/non-dual enrollment type would be:
[(Assigned Beneficiaries in County A/Assignable Beneficiaries in County
A) x (Assigned Beneficiaries in County A/Total Assigned Beneficiaries)]
+ [(Assigned Beneficiaries in County B/Assignable Beneficiaries in
County B) x (Assigned Beneficiaries in County B/Total Assigned
Beneficiaries)] or [(9,000/10,000) x (9,000/11,000)] + [(2,000/12,000)
x (2,000/11,000)], or 76.7 percent. The weight given to the regional
component of the blended trend factor for aged/non-dual enrollment type
in this example would be 23.3 percent. Because this hypothetical ACO
has high penetration in its regional service area, the national
component of the blended trend factor would receive a much higher
weight than the regional component.
Initial modeling among 73 ACOs that renewed for a second agreement
period in 2017 found that the weighted average share of assignable
beneficiaries in an ACO's regional service area that are assigned to
the ACO ranged from under 1 percent to around 60 percent, when looking
at all four enrollment types combined, with a median of 12.3 percent
and a mean of 15.1 percent. Among the 73 ACOs, 8 (11 percent) had
regional shares above 30 percent. We found similar distributions when
looking at the four enrollment types individually. Among ACOs with
overall regional shares above 30 percent, the simulated use of blended
trend factors caused changes in benchmarks (relative to current policy)
of -0.8 percent to 0.3 percent, with half seeing a slight negative
impact and the other half seeing a slight positive impact. Based on
these statistics, it appears that most ACOs currently do not have
significant penetration in their regional service areas. As a result,
we would expect that for most ACOs the regional component of the
blended trend factor would receive a higher weight than the national
component and that the overall impact of the national-regional blend on
benchmarks relative to current policy would be small. Should
penetration patterns change over time, the blended formula would
automatically shift more weight to the national component of the trend
factor.
We would also use a national-regional blend when updating the
historical benchmark for each performance year. That is, we would
multiply historical benchmark expenditures for each Medicare enrollment
type by an update factor that blends national and regional expenditure
growth rates between BY3 and the performance year. The national
component for each update factor would equal performance year per
capita FFS expenditures for the national assignable beneficiary
population for that enrollment type divided by BY3 per capita FFS
expenditures for the national assignable beneficiary population for
that enrollment type. As described above, the FFS expenditures for the
national population would not be risk-adjusted. The regional component
for each update factor would equal the weighted average of risk-
adjusted county FFS expenditures among assignable beneficiaries,
including the ACO's assigned beneficiaries, in the ACO's regional
service area in the performance year divided by the weighted average of
risk-adjusted county FFS expenditures among assignable beneficiaries,
including the ACO's assigned beneficiaries, in the ACO's regional
service area in BY3. This regional component would be computed in the
same manner as the regional updates used to update the rebased
benchmark for ACOs that enter a second or subsequent agreement period
in 2017 or later years under the current regulations. The weights used
to blend the national and regional components of the update factor
would be calculated in the same manner as the weights that we proposed
to use in calculating the blended trend factors for the historical
benchmark, except they would be based on performance year rather than
BY3 data. That is, the weight assigned to the national component would
represent the share of assignable beneficiaries in
[[Page 68026]]
ACO's regional service area that are assigned to the ACO (based on a
weighted average of county-level shares) in the performance year and
the weight assigned to the regional component would be equal to 1 minus
that share.
In addition to the national-regional blend, we considered an
alternate approach that would incorporate national trends at the county
level instead of at the regional service area level (national-county
blend). Under this alternative, for each county that is in an ACO's
regional service area in BY3, we would calculate trend factors to
capture growth in county-level risk-adjusted expenditures for
assignable beneficiaries from BY1 to BY3 and from BY2 to BY3. Each
county-level trend factor would be blended with the national trend
factor. The blended trend factor for each county would be a weighted
average of the national and county-level trends where the weight
applied to the national component would be the share of assignable
beneficiaries in the county that are assigned to the ACO in BY3. The
weight applied to the county component of the blend would be 1 minus
the national weight.
After computing the blended trend factor for each county, we would
determine the weighted average across all counties in the ACO's
regional service area in BY3, using the proportion of assigned
beneficiaries residing in each county in BY3 as weights to obtain an
overall blended trend factor. We would then apply this overall blended
trend factor to the expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiary
population for the relevant benchmark year. All calculations would be
done separately for each Medicare enrollment type. A similar approach
would be used to compute update factors between BY3 and the performance
year, but using weights based on share of assignable beneficiaries in
each county that are assigned to the ACO in the performance year.
Returning to the hypothetical ACO from above, under the national-
county blend we would calculate separate blended trend factors for
County A and County B. For County A, the national component would
receive a weight of 90.0 percent (9,000/10,000) and the county
component would receive a weight of 1 minus 90.0 percent, or 10.0
percent. For County B, the national component would receive a weight of
16.7 percent (2,000/12,000) and the county component would receive a
weight of 1 minus 16.7 percent, or 83.3 percent. After computing the
blended trend factor for each county, we would take the weighted
average across the two counties, with County A's blended trend factor
receiving a weight of 81.8 percent (9,000/11,000) and County B's
blended trend factor receiving a weight of 18.2 percent (2,000/11,000).
Our modeling suggested that, for most ACOs, applying the blend at
the county-level would yield similar results to the national-regional
blend. However, for ACOs that have experienced shifts in the geographic
distribution of their assigned beneficiaries over time, we found the
two methods to diverge. This is because the national-regional blend
reflects not only changes in expenditures within specific counties over
time, but also changes in the geographic distribution of the ACO's own
assigned beneficiaries. The national-county blend, by contrast, holds
the geographic distribution of an ACO's assigned beneficiaries fixed at
the BY3 distribution (for trend factors) or at the performance year
distribution (for update factors), potentially reducing accuracy.
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we also expressed the concern
that calculating trends at the county rather than regional level, in
addition to being less accurate, would be less transparent to ACOs.
While national and regional trends are both used under our current
benchmarking policies, and are thus familiar to ACOs, county-level
trends would present a new concept. For these reasons, we explained
that we favored the approach that incorporates national trends at the
regional rather than county level.
Finally, we considered yet another approach that would simply
replace regional trend and update factors with national factors for
ACOs above a certain threshold of penetration in their regional service
area. Specifically, if the share of assignable beneficiaries in an
ACO's regional service area that are assigned to that ACO (computed as
described above as a weighted average of county-level shares) is above
the 90th percentile among all currently active ACOs for a given
enrollment type in BY3, we would use national trend factors to trend
forward BY1 and BY2 expenditures to BY3. For ACOs that are below the
90th percentile for a given enrollment type, we would continue to use
regional factors as we do under the current policy. We would use a
similar approach for the update factors, except the threshold would be
based on the share of assignable beneficiaries that are assigned to the
ACO in the performance year rather than BY3. Among the 73 ACOs that
entered a second agreement period in 2017, the 90th percentile for the
four enrollment types ranged between 25 and 30 percent of assignable
beneficiaries in the ACO's regional service area. We noted that one
drawback of this approach relative to the blended approaches previously
described is that it would treat ACOs that are just below the threshold
and just above the threshold very differently, even though they may be
similarly influencing expenditure trends in their regional service
areas.
We also noted that as we had previously indicated with respect to
regional trends (see, for example, 81 FR 37976) and as suggested by our
modeling, the national-regional blend, as well as the other options
considered, would have mixed effects on ACOs depending on how the
expenditure trends in an ACO's regional service area differ from the
national trend. ACOs that have high penetration in their regional
service area and that have helped to drive lower growth in their region
relative to the national trend would benefit from this policy. ACOs
that have contributed to higher growth in their regions would likely
have lower benchmarks as a result of this policy than under current
policy, helping to protect the Medicare Trust Fund and providing
increased incentives for these ACOs to lower costs.
Based on the considerations previously discussed, we proposed to
use a blend of national and regional trend factors (that is, the
national-regional blend) to trend forward BY1 and BY2 to BY3 when
determining the historical benchmark. We also proposed to use a blend
of national and regional update factors, computed as described in
section II.D.3.d of the proposed rule, to update the historical
benchmark to the performance year (or to CY 2019 in the context of
determining the financial performance of ACOs for the 6-month
performance year from July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, as
proposed in section II.A.7. of the proposed rule). The blended trend
and update factors would apply to determine the historical benchmark
for all agreement periods starting on July 1, 2019, or in subsequent
years, regardless of whether it is an ACO's first, second, or
subsequent agreement period. We also made clear that in the event an
ACO makes changes to its certified ACO participant list for a given
performance year or its assignment methodology selection, the weight
that would be applied to the national and regional components of the
blended trend and update factors would be recomputed to reflect changes
in the composition of the ACO's assigned beneficiary population in BY3.
[[Page 68027]]
Because the proposed blended update factor would be used in place
of an update factor based on the projected absolute amount of growth in
national per capita expenditures for Parts A and B services under the
original FFS program as called for in section 1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the
Act, we noted that this proposal would require us to use our authority
under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act. This provision grants the
Secretary the authority to use other payment models, including payment
models that use alternative benchmarking methodologies, if the
Secretary determines that doing so would improve the quality and
efficiency of items and services furnished under Title XVIII and the
alternative methodology would result in program expenditures equal to
or lower than those that would result under the statutory payment
model.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41893), we expressed our
belief that by combining a national component that is more independent
of an ACO's own experience with a regional component that captures
location-specific trends, the proposed blended update factor would
mitigate concerns about ACO influence on regional trend factors,
improving the accuracy of the benchmark update and potentially
protecting incentives for ACOs that may have high penetration in their
regional service areas. As such, we believed that this proposed change
to the statutory benchmarking methodology would improve the quality and
efficiency of the program. As discussed in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the August 2018 proposed rule (section IV. of the proposed
rule), we projected that this proposed approach, in combination with
other changes to the statutory payment model proposed elsewhere in the
proposed rule, as well as current policies established using the
authority of section 1899(i)(3) of the Act, would not increase program
expenditures relative to those under the statutory payment model.
In summary, we proposed to use a blend of national and regional
trend factors to trend forward BY1 and BY2 to BY3 when determining the
historical benchmark and a blend of national and regional update
factors to update the historical benchmark to the performance year (or
to CY 2019 in the context of determining the financial performance of
ACOs for the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019 through
December 31, 2019, as proposed in section II.A.7. of the proposed
rule). The national component of the blended trend and update factors
would receive a weight equal to the share of assignable beneficiaries
in the regional service area that are assigned to the ACO, computed as
described in section II.D.3.d of the proposed rule by taking a weighted
average of county-level shares. The regional component of the blended
trend and update factors would receive a weight equal to 1 minus the
national weight. The proposed blended trend and update factors would
apply to all agreement periods starting on July 1, 2019, or in
subsequent years, regardless of whether it is an ACO's first, second,
or subsequent agreement period. These proposed policies were included
in the proposed new provision at Sec. 425.601, which would govern the
determination of historical benchmarks for all ACOs for agreement
periods starting on July 1, 2019, or in subsequent years. We sought
comment on these proposals, as well as the alternatives considered,
including incorporating national trends at the county rather than
regional level or using national trend factors for ACOs with
penetration in their regional service area exceeding a certain
threshold.
Comment: One commenter strongly supported the use of blended
regional and national trend factors when calculating the historical
benchmark. This commenter expressed the belief that this policy would
ensure that ACOs whose assigned beneficiaries comprise a large
percentage of the region's Medicare FFS beneficiaries are not adversely
impacted by their successful efforts to reduce the total cost of care.
The commenter believes that this policy will encourage large ACOs to
remain in the program and increases the likelihood that they will
continue to generate savings over multiple agreement periods. Another
commenter supported the use of blended national and regional trend
factors as long as the regional trend factor is based on FFS
beneficiaries and does not include beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare
Advantage.
Several other commenters generally agreed with the concept of
blending national and regional growth rates to trend or update
benchmarks with greater weight given to national trends for ACOs that
serve a large share of the FFS population in their areas but requested
that CMS exclude ACO assigned beneficiaries from the regional component
of the blend. A few commenters suggested excluding ACO assigned
beneficiaries from the national component as well. A larger number of
commenters recommended using purely regional trend factors based on a
regional population that excludes ACO assigned beneficiaries to trend
and update benchmarks instead of a blend. Other commenters were also in
favor of excluding ACO assigned beneficiaries in regional trends but
did not specify whether they believed this should occur in addition to
or in place of a blend. Commenters also appeared to have mixed views on
whether the exclusion should be limited to a particular ACO's own
assigned beneficiaries, all Shared Savings Program assigned
beneficiaries, or beneficiaries assigned to any Medicare shared savings
initiative. One commenter did not specifically call for removing ACO
assigned beneficiaries from regional calculations but requested that
CMS take additional steps to address the problem of regionally
significant ACOs driving expenditures in their service areas. As noted
in section II.D.3.c. of this final rule, some commenters also called
for excluding ACO assigned beneficiaries from the regional expenditures
used to calculate an ACO's regional adjustment.
One commenter noted that while the proposed blending of national
and regional growth rates would likely be an improvement over the
current approach used in the rebasing methodology adopted in the June
2016 final rule, it would only partially improve the incentive for ACOs
that are dominant in their region to reduce spending and that by
placing a significant weight on the national component in these
situations, the blend would do a worse job of capturing the local
spending trends facing an ACO. Another commenter expressed similar
views, noting that the proposed national-regional blend was ``a step in
the right direction'' but could over-emphasize the national trend
component, which ignores local market dynamics. The commenter believes
that the blend would diminish the incentive that ACOs have to
concentrate in high trend areas of the country and to control trend at
the local level. In addition, this commenter believes that excluding
ACO assigned beneficiaries from the regional reference population is a
simpler solution that eliminates the situation where an ACO is being
directly evaluated against itself. Several other commenters also raised
concerns about ACOs competing against themselves or influencing
regional trends when assigned beneficiaries are included in regional
expenditure calculations, which could make it more difficult for an ACO
to realize savings or to be comfortable taking on increasing amounts of
risk. Other commenters suggested that including ACO assigned
beneficiaries in regional trends reduced incentives for ACOs to
participate or to reduce expenditures, particularly among rural ACOs.
Several other commenters
[[Page 68028]]
suggested that removing ACO assigned beneficiaries was necessary to
obtain a true comparison between an ACO and its region or would produce
more accurate benchmarks.
Several commenters also provided suggestions for how to address
potential small sample size issues that could result from removing ACO
assigned beneficiaries from regional expenditure calculations including
expanding the geographic area to include adjacent or otherwise similar
counties, using Hospital Referral Regions in place of counties,
averaging over multiple years, increasing weights on counties with
lower proportions of assigned beneficiaries, or employing other
statistical techniques. One commenter noted that if the Shared Savings
Program grows to the point where the non-ACO FFS population is very
small, CMS should select a desirable rate at which benchmarks should
grow and apply it to all ACOs.
Response: We appreciate the comments we received on our proposal to
use a blend of national and regional growth rates to trend and update
the historical benchmark. We agree with commenters that our proposed
approach of using a blend of national and regional growth rates to
trend and update the historical benchmark would help to address
concerns about ACOs with high penetration driving the trends in their
regions and are finalizing this proposal. For the reasons described in
the June 2016 final rule (81 FR 37960), we did not propose to remove
ACO assigned beneficiaries from the regional or national populations
used to compute growth rates or the regional adjustment and are not
adopting commenters' recommendations regarding this approach at this
time. As we noted in the June 2016 final rule, we believe that removing
assigned beneficiaries could lead to biased calculations, particularly
in the case of ACOs serving higher cost beneficiaries within their
regions and we have significant concerns about the complexity of the
customized calculations that would be necessary to remove each ACO's
own assigned beneficiaries from the calculation of growth rates, as
suggested by some commenters. We believe such calculations would be
operationally burdensome and less transparent. As we are not modifying
our proposal in order to remove ACO assigned beneficiaries from the
determination of either regional or national growth rates, we do not
believe it is necessary to adopt commenters' various recommendations
for addressing small sample size issues.
National and regional expenditures will continue to be based on
assignable beneficiaries in the FFS population during the applicable
benchmark or performance year. Beneficiaries with months of Medicare
Advantage enrollment during a particular benchmark or performance year
may be included in the assignable beneficiary population for that year,
but we would only consider the months in which those beneficiaries were
enrolled in both Parts A and B and not enrolled in Medicare Advantage
in making expenditure calculations.
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the proposed approach of
using a blend of national and regional growth rates, stating that this
holds organizations in areas with historically low spending growth to a
higher standard than those who are in high spending growth areas by
assuming that regions with slower growth will be able to maintain these
low trends when, in fact, the opposite may be true. The commenter
believes that CMS should incentivize organizations in low growth areas
to participate by using national trends only and by applying a more
dramatic increase in their trend. Specifically, the commenter
recommended that organizations that are in regions with growth trends
below the national average and that have had historical spending at or
below 85 percent of the national average should receive a 3 percent
increase to their growth factor based national trends. Organizations
with historical spending at or below 90 percent or 95 percent of the
national average could receive a 2 percent or 1 percent added to their
trend, respectively. Another commenter stated that he supported the
move towards a national-regional blend, but also believes that the
current proposal penalizes organizations with historically low spending
growth. This commenter also supported a 3 percent increase to the trend
factor for ACOs in regions with below average cost growth that have
historical spending at or below 85 percent of the national average.
Both commenters expressed the belief that this approach would encourage
organizations in California and other efficient areas to transition to
a risk-based APM instead of continuing in MIPS. Another commenter
recommended that CMS consider using a prospectively determined trend
rate, which would allow for greater predictability of financial results
by ACOs, noting that such trend rates are used in the Next Generation
ACO Model and Medicare Advantage program. Similarly, one commenter
called for using a ``pre-determined inflation adjustment''.
Response: We do not agree with one commenter's assertion that the
proposed policy of using a blend of national and regional growth rates
to trend or update the benchmark assumes that regions with slow growth
will continue to have slow growth, because the proposed policy relies
on retrospective growth rates, which reflect actual growth rates. In
contrast, we believe that using prospectively determined trend rates or
adjustments, as suggested by some commenters, could have this problem,
even if this approach may offer other advantages.
We do recognize that, all else being equal, ACOs in regions with
slower than average growth would fare worse under the blended approach
than they would under a policy that relies on purely national growth
rates. However, we believe that it is important to balance the goal of
creating incentives for participation with the desire to reflect the
local circumstances of an ACO's region, in order to avoid windfall
gains to ACOs that are located in low growth areas.
We also believe that providing a growth rate ``add on'' for
efficient ACOs in such areas could help to increase participation by
ACOs in these areas, but could similarly lead to windfall gains to the
detriment of the Trust Funds.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the proposed policies would
not adequately solve the disparity in regional trend factors. They
noted that ACOs in some areas of the country are faced with trying to
beat national trends while regional trends are much higher.
Response: We believe that our proposal to incorporate regional
factors into an ACO's benchmark for its first agreement period, which
we are finalizing, helps to address the concern raised by this
commenter that ACOs in areas with high cost growth are at a
disadvantage when national factors are used to trend or update the
benchmark. Under the new policy that we are adopting in this final
rule, all ACOs, including those in their first agreement period, will
receive a blend of national and regional trend and update factors.
Furthermore, for most ACOs, the weight applied to the regional growth
rate will likely be higher than the weight applied to the national
growth rate.
Comment: Several commenters did not agree with our proposal for
weighting the regional and national components of growth rates. One
commenter expressed the belief that this weighting should be based on
multilevel statistical modeling approaches rather than what the
commenter described as an arbitrary weighting scheme. Another
[[Page 68029]]
commenter expressed concern about weighting the regional benchmark in
inverse proportion to an ACO's market share, noting that the better an
ACO performs, the more it reduces its regional benchmark, effectively
reducing the opportunity for future savings. Another commenter also
opposed applying a greater weight to the national trend factor based on
market penetration stating that an assessment of an ACO's effectiveness
should not be tied to the size of market penetration and that CMS
should be able to set a financial target in a market that determines
whether or not an ACO was effective in generating savings, rather than
creating a moving target based on an ACO's individual circumstances.
One additional commenter, while not specifically addressing the
proposed weighting methodology, expressed the belief that regional
factors should be a bigger percentage of the formulas as healthcare is
a local phenomenon.
Response: We are finalizing our proposed methodology for blending
regional and national factors, which automatically adjusts the weight
of the two components to reflect the percentage of an ACO's assigned
beneficiaries relative to its region. We believe this approach will be
more transparent and familiar to ACOs than an approach that relies on
statistical modeling, while still reducing the extent to which the
overall blended trend factor reflects an individual ACO's performance
for ACOs that are highly penetrated in their region. As we noted in the
proposed rule, we observed a median penetration rate for ACOs of around
12 percent. Therefore, we anticipate that for the majority of ACOs this
weighing approach will provide a higher weight for regional factors
(for example, 88 percent based on the median) as opposed to national
factors.
We disagree with commenters that basing the weights of the national
growth factor on an ACO's market penetration constitutes an assessment
of an ACO's performance. The rationale behind using an ACO's market
penetration to determine the national weight is meant to reduce the
impact that an ACO's own expenditure patterns will have on the growth
rates used to trend and update its benchmark.
Comment: A few commenters recommended modifying the update that is
applied to an ACO's benchmark for a performance year that is affected
by an extreme an uncontrollable circumstance. For example, these
commenters recommended that CMS apply a growth rate that is the higher
of the national growth rate for assignable beneficiaries or the
regional growth rate for assignable beneficiaries (excluding an ACO's
own assigned beneficiaries). A few other commenters recommended that
CMS use the proposed blend of national and regional expenditure growth
rates to update the benchmark in ``normal times'' but use a purely
regional growth rate in the event of an extreme and uncontrollable
circumstance.
Response: In the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59968 through
59979) we finalized policies to extend, with minor modifications, the
performance year 2017 extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies
to performance year 2018 and subsequent years. These policies include
an alternate quality scoring methodology for ACOs that are affected by
extreme and uncontrollable circumstances and an adjustment to shared
losses based on the percentage of the total months in the performance
year affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances and the
percentage of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries residing in an affected
area. In that final rule, we explained our belief that the use of
regional growth rates in determining benchmark update factors for all
ACOs, as we are finalizing in this final rule, would provide an
inherent adjustment to the historical benchmark for expenditure changes
resulting from extreme and uncontrollable circumstances during the
agreement period.
We appreciate commenters' suggestions for additional approaches to
providing relief for ACOs impacted by extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances. We are concerned that the suggestion offered by some
commenters of using the higher of the national or regional rate
implicitly assumes that expenditures will always rise in a year
affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance, which may not
always be the case. We therefore believe this approach would not
appropriately address instances where expenditures for an ACO declined
between the benchmark period and the performance year due to an extreme
and uncontrollable event occurring during the performance year. It also
may not appropriately address circumstances where expenditures are
higher in the benchmark period than they otherwise would have been due
to an extreme and uncontrollable event and then show a decline between
the benchmark period and the performance year. We believe that a
blended national-regional trend factor will better correct for such
variations than a national trend factor alone, because regional
expenditures are more likely than national expenditures to share the
expenditure impacts of a natural disaster experienced by an individual
ACO. We also decline to adopt the suggestion of using a purely regional
growth rate in place of a blended growth rate in cases where there is
an extreme and uncontrollable event in the benchmark period or the
performance year as we believe that even following an extreme and
uncontrollable event, it is still important to use a national-regional
blend to address concerns about ACOs with high market penetration
driving the expenditure growth rate in their own regions.
Final Action: After considering the comments received, we are
finalizing our proposal to use a blend of national and regional trend
factors to trend forward BY1 and BY2 to BY3 when determining the
historical benchmark and a blend of national and regional update
factors to update the historical benchmark to the performance year (or
to CY 2019 in the context of determining the financial performance of
ACOs for the 6-month performance year from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019, as finalized in section II.A.7. of this the final
rule). The national component of the blended trend and update factors
will receive a weight equal to the share of assignable beneficiaries in
the regional service area that are assigned to the ACO, computed by
taking a weighted average of county-level shares. The regional
component of the blended trend and update factors will receive a weight
equal to 1 minus the national weight. The proposed blended trend and
update factors will apply for all agreement periods starting on July 1,
2019, or in subsequent years, regardless of whether it is an ACO's
first, second, or subsequent agreement period. These policies are
included in the new provision at Sec. 425.601, which will govern the
determination of historical benchmarks for all ACOs for agreement
periods starting on July 1, 2019, or in subsequent years.
As explained in the August 2018 proposed rule, the use of a blended
update factor requires us to use our authority under section 1899(i)(3)
of the Act. This provision grants the Secretary the authority to use
other payment models, including payment models that use alternative
benchmarking methodologies, if the Secretary determines that doing so
would improve the quality and efficiency of items and services
furnished under Title XVIII and the alternative methodology would
result in program expenditures equal to or lower than those that would
result under the statutory payment model. As discussed in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (section V. of this final rule),
[[Page 68030]]
we continue to believe that using a blend of national and regional
growth rates to update the benchmark, in combination with the other
changes to the statutory payment model being finalized in this final
rule, as well as current policies established using the authority of
section 1899(i)(3) of the Act, would not increase program expenditures
beyond the expenditures that would otherwise occur under the statutory
payment methodology in section 1899(d) of the Act. Specifically, we
believe that these policies together will result in more accurate and
predictable benchmarks for use over longer agreement periods during
which ACOs will be required to participate under performance-based
risk. We believe policies that encourage ACOs to take greater
accountability for the cost of the care furnished to their assigned
beneficiaries offer greater incentives for ACOs to invest in effective
care management efforts that lead to improved coordination of
beneficiary care and to continue to improve quality of care and out-
perform other Medicare fee-for-service providers on related quality of
care and outcome measures. As a result, we believe the policies that we
are adopting in this final rule using our authority under section
1899(i)(3) of the Act, including the modifications to the methodology
for updating the historical benchmark discussed in this section, will
lead to continued improvement in the quality of care furnished to
Medicare fee-for-service- beneficiaries.
4. Technical Changes To Incorporate References to Benchmark Rebasing
Policies
We proposed to make certain technical, conforming changes to the
following provisions to reflect our proposal to add a new section of
the regulations at Sec. 425.601 to govern the calculation of the
historical benchmark for all agreement periods starting on July 1,
2019, and in subsequent years. We also proposed to make conforming
changes to these provisions to incorporate the policies on resetting,
adjusting, and updating the benchmark that were adopted in the June
2016 final rule, and codified in the regulations at Sec. 425.603.
Under subpart C, which governs application procedures,
add references to Sec. Sec. 425.601 and 425.603 in Sec.
425.204(g);
Under subpart D, which governs the calculation of
shared savings and losses, add references to Sec. 425.603 in
Sec. Sec. 425.604 (Track 1) and 425.606 (Track 2); and add
references to Sec. Sec. 425.601 and 425.603 in Sec. 425.610
(ENHANCED track);
As part of the modifications to Sec. 425.610, make a
wording change to the paragraph currently numerated as (a)(2)(ii)
that could not be completed with the June 2016 final rule due to a
typographical error. In this paragraph, we would remove the phase
``adjusts for changes'', and in its place add the phrase ``CMS
adjusts the benchmark for changes''; and
Under subpart I, which governs the reconsideration
review process, add references to Sec. Sec. 425.601 and 425.603 to
Sec. 425.800(a)(4). In addition, as previously described, we have
used our authority under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act to modify
certain aspects of the statutory payment and benchmarking
methodology under section 1899(d) of the Act. Accordingly, we also
proposed to amend Sec. 425.800(a)(4) to clarify that the preclusion
of administrative and judicial review applies only to the extent
that a specific calculation is performed in accordance with section
1899(d) of the Act.
Final Action: We did not receive any comments regarding these
proposed technical changes to incorporate references to benchmark
rebasing policies. We are finalizing the changes described in this
section as proposed. We also received no comments specifically
addressing our proposal to revise Sec. 425.800 to clarify that the
preclusion of administrative and judicial review with respect to
certain financial calculations applies only to the extent that a
specific calculation is performed in accordance with section 1899(d) of
the Act. We are finalizing these modifications as proposed.
E. Updating Program Policies
1. Overview
In section II.E of the proposed rule, we proposed revisions
designed to update certain policies under the Shared Savings Program.
The policies discussed in sections II.E.2. through II.E.6 of the August
2018 proposed rule were addressed in the November 2018 final rule (83
FR 59959 through 59988). In section II.E.7 of the proposed rule, we
solicited comments on how Medicare ACOs and Part D sponsors could be
encouraged to collaborate so as to improve the coordination of pharmacy
care for Medicare FFS beneficiaries. We discuss the comments received
in response to this solicitation in section II.E.2 of this final rule.
2. Coordination of Pharmacy Care for ACO Beneficiaries
Medicare ACOs and other stakeholders have indicated an interest in
collaborating to enhance the coordination of pharmacy care for Medicare
FFS beneficiaries to reduce the risk of adverse events and improve
medication adherence. For example, areas where ACOs and the sponsors of
stand-alone Part D PDPs might collaborate to enhance pharmacy care
coordination include establishing innovative approaches to increase
clinician formulary compliance (when clinically appropriate) and
medication compliance; providing pharmacy counseling services from
pharmacists; and implementing medication therapy management. Part D
sponsors may be able to play a greater role in coordinating the care of
their enrolled Medicare FFS beneficiaries and having greater
accountability for their overall health outcomes, such as for
beneficiaries with chronic diseases where treatment and outcome are
highly dependent on appropriate medication use and adherence. Increased
collaboration between ACOs and Part D sponsors may facilitate better
and more affordable drug treatment options for beneficiaries by
encouraging the use of generic prescription medications, where
clinically appropriate, or reducing medical errors through better
coordination between health care providers and Part D sponsors.
As we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule, we believe that
Medicare ACOs and Part D sponsors may be able to enter into appropriate
business arrangements to support improved pharmacy care coordination,
provided such arrangements comply with all applicable laws and
regulations. However, challenges may exist in forming these
arrangements. Under the Pioneer ACO Model, an average of 54 percent of
the beneficiaries assigned to Pioneer ACOs in 2012 were also enrolled
in a PDP in that year, with the median ACO having at most only 13
percent of its assigned beneficiaries enrolled in a plan offered by the
same PDP parent organization. For performance year 2016, we found that
approximately 70 percent of the beneficiaries assigned to Shared
Savings Program ACOs had continuous Part D coverage.
We believe timely access to data could improve pharmacy care
coordination. Although CMS already provides Medicare ACOs with certain
Part D prescription drug event data, it may be useful for both Medicare
ACOs and Part D sponsors to share certain clinical data and pharmacy
data with each other to support coordination of pharmacy care. Any data
sharing arrangements between ACOs and Part D sponsors should comply
with all applicable legal requirements regarding the privacy and
confidentiality of such data, including the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security
Rules.
[[Page 68031]]
In the August 2018 proposed rule, we solicited comment on how
Medicare ACOs, and specifically Shared Savings Program ACOs, and Part D
sponsors could work together and be encouraged to improve the
coordination of pharmacy care for Medicare FFS beneficiaries to achieve
better health outcomes, better health care, and lower per-capita
expenditures for Medicare beneficiaries. In addition, we sought comment
on what kind of support would be useful for Medicare ACOs and Part D
sponsors in establishing new, innovative business arrangements to
promote pharmacy care coordination to improve overall health outcomes
for Medicare beneficiaries. We also sought comment on issues related to
how CMS, Medicare ACOs and Part D sponsors might structure the
financial terms of these arrangements to reward Part D sponsors'
contributions towards achieving program goals, including improving the
beneficiary's coordination of care. Lastly, we sought comment on
whether ACOs are currently partnering with Part D sponsors, if there
are any barriers to developing these relationships (including, but not
limited to, data and information sharing), and if there are any
recommendations for how CMS can assist, as appropriate, with reducing
barriers and enabling more robust data sharing.
Comment: Many commenters were supportive of CMS' request for
comments on how Medicare ACOs, and specifically Shared Savings Program
ACOs, and Part D sponsors could work together and be encouraged to
improve the coordination of pharmacy care for Medicare FFS
beneficiaries. Several commenters stated that improved collaboration
between Medicare ACOs and Part D Plans (PDPs) would provide more
comprehensive care and improve overall quality, by enhancing care
coordination, medication adherence, potentially reducing the risk of
adverse drug events, and offering pharmacy counseling services that
could ensure that patients receive timely access to the most
appropriate form of treatment for their given condition. A commenter
suggested that the timing of data sharing between CMS, ACOs, and PDPs
would be important for successful collaboration. Another commenter
suggested that data sharing between PDPs and ACOs could create pathways
for achieving efficiencies in drug expenditures and reduce burden.
Another commenter suggested that CMS should provide Part D claims data
that would assist ACOs in addressing crucial care management issues and
improve outcomes. In addition, the commenter stated that they believed
there should be financial incentives for PDPs and ACOs to coordinate
and align care.
Many commenters offered suggestions for improving the coordination
between PDPs and ACOs. A few commenters suggested CMS should
investigate ways to make pharmacy data more readily available to ACOs
so they can share this information with their ACO providers/suppliers.
The commenters indicated that the use of enabling technology, such as
secure data access portals and data sets accessible using Application
Programming Interfaces, could provide ACOs timely access to claims data
for their aligned beneficiaries. Commenters suggested that timely
access to these data could allow ACOs to develop provider alert
processes that could improve care. In addition, one commenter suggested
that CMS should consider developing a Shared Savings Program voluntary
demonstration that incorporates ACO accountability for Part D costs.
Another commenter suggested CMS explore opportunities to allow waivers
that would allow lower prescription drug copayments for ACO assigned
beneficiaries. Another commenter suggested CMS incorporate community
pharmacies that provide coordinated patient care into the Shared
Savings Program to improve outcomes for patients who are high risk or
are in underserved areas. Another commenter encouraged CMS to consider
medication management as a critical potential modifier of health
status, encourage the use of pharmacists as a primary point of
intersection between ACOs and Part D plans, improve access to clinical
and pharmacy data, and adopt performance-based payments to reflect
pharmacists' contributions to cost reduction and improved coordination.
A few commenters expressed concerns about Shared Savings Program ACOs
and PDPs working together to improve pharmacy coordination. One
commenter expressed concern regarding the differences between Part D
Medication Management Therapy (MTM) and medication management services
provided through coordinated care models, and specifically noted
variation in beneficiary eligibility for MTM services, depending on
their Part D plan. The commenter asked that CMS address current
barriers to beneficiary eligibility for MTM before making any
additional changes to policies under the Shared Savings Program to
improve care coordination with pharmacies. One commenter requested more
details on CMS' plan to promote information sharing, and along with
another commenter, expressed concern regarding the capability of PDPs
and ACOs to undertake information sharing and the costs that they
believed would be incurred.
Response: We thank the commenters for their input on the
coordination of pharmacy care for ACO assigned beneficiaries. As we
plan for any future updates and changes to the Shared Savings Program,
we will consider this feedback from commenters before making any
proposals related to the coordination of pharmacy care.
F. Applicability of Final Policies to Track 1+ Model ACOs
1. Background
In section II.F. of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41912), we
discussed the applicability of our proposed policies to Track 1+ Model
ACOs, and in the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59988 through 59990)
we described the applicability of certain policies adopted in that
final rule to Track 1+ Model ACOs.
In these earlier rules, we explained that the Track 1+ Model was
established under the Innovation Center's authority at section 1115A of
the Act, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to
reduce program expenditures while preserving or enhancing the quality
of care for Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program
beneficiaries. We noted that 55 Shared Savings Program Track 1 ACOs
entered into the Track 1+ Model beginning on January 1, 2018. This
includes 35 ACOs that entered the model within their current agreement
period (to complete the remainder of their agreement period under the
model) and 20 ACOs that entered into a new 3-year agreement under the
model.
To enter the Track 1+ Model, ACOs must be approved to participate
in the model and are required to agree to the terms and conditions of
the model by executing a Track 1+ Model Participation Agreement
available at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/track-1plus-model-par-agreement.pdf. Track 1+ Model ACOs are also required to have been
approved to participate in the Shared Savings Program (Track 1) and to
have executed a Shared Savings Program Participation Agreement. As
indicated in the Track 1+ Model Participation Agreement, in accordance
with our authority under section 1115A(d)(1) of the Act, CMS has waived
certain requirements of the Shared Savings Program that otherwise would
[[Page 68032]]
be applicable to ACOs participating in Track 1 of the Shared Savings
Program, as necessary for purposes of testing the Track 1+ Model, and
established alternative requirements for the ACOs participating in the
Track 1+ Model.
We explained that, unless stated otherwise in the Track 1+ Model
Participation Agreement, the requirements of the Shared Savings Program
under 42 CFR part 425 continue to apply. Consistent with Sec. 425.212,
Track 1+ Model ACOs are subject to all applicable regulatory changes,
including but not limited to, changes to the regulatory provisions
referenced within the Track 1+ Model Participation Agreement, that
become effective during the term of the ACO's Shared Savings Program
Participation Agreement and Track 1+ Model Participation Agreement,
unless otherwise specified through rulemaking or amendment to the Track
1+ Model Participation Agreement. We also noted that the terms of the
Track 1+ Model Participation Agreement permit the parties (CMS and the
ACO) to amend the agreement at any time by mutual written agreement.
2. Unavailability of Application Cycles for Entry Into the Track 1+
Model in 2019 and 2020
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41912 through 41913), we
discussed the unavailability of application cycles for entry into the
Track 1+ Model in 2019 and 2020. We explained that an ACO's opportunity
to join the Track 1+ Model aligns with the Shared Savings Program's
application cycle. The original design of the Track 1+ Model included 3
application cycles for ACOs to apply to enter or, if eligible and if
applicable, to renew their participation in the Track 1+ Model for an
agreement period start date of 2018, 2019, or 2020. We noted that the
2018 application cycle had closed, and that 55 ACOs began participating
in the Track 1+ Model on January 1, 2018. As discussed in section
II.A.7. of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41847) and section
V.B.1.a of the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59942 through 59946), we
are not offering an application cycle for a January 1, 2019 start date
for new agreement periods under the Shared Savings Program. Therefore,
we explained that we would similarly not offer a start date of January
1, 2019, for participation in the Track 1+ Model.
In the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41912 through 41913), we
explained that we had re-evaluated the need for continuing the Track 1+
Model as a participation option for 2019 and 2020 in light of the
proposal to offer the BASIC track (including a glide path for eligible
ACOs) as a participation option beginning in 2019. Like the Track 1+
Model, the BASIC track would offer relatively lower levels of risk and
potential reward than Track 2 and the ENHANCED track. The BASIC track's
glide path would allow the flexibility for eligible ACOs to enter a
one-sided model and to automatically progress through levels of risk
and reward that end at a comparable level of risk and reward (Level E)
to that offered in the Track 1+ Model and also to qualify as
participating in an Advanced APM. ACOs in the glide path could also
elect to more quickly enter higher levels of risk and reward within the
BASIC track. We stated that if the proposed approach to adding the
BASIC track were finalized and made available for agreement periods
beginning in 2019 and subsequent years, we would discontinue future
application cycles for the Track 1+ Model. In that case, the Track 1+
Model would not accept new model participants for start dates of July
1, 2019, or January 1, 2020, or in subsequent years.
As described in section II.A.2. and II.A.3. of this final rule, we
are finalizing the BASIC track to include Level E, with a level of risk
and reward that is comparable to the Track 1+ Model. Therefore, we will
forgo future application cycles for the Track 1+ Model, as we believe
offering both the BASIC track and the Track 1+ Model would create
unnecessary redundancy in participation options within CMS' Medicare
ACO initiatives. As we explained in the August 2018 proposed rule (83
FR 41912 through 41913), the high level of interest in the Track 1+
Model indicates a positive response to its design, and therefore we
believe we have met an important goal of testing the Track 1+ Model. We
have also incorporated lessons learned from our initial experience with
the Track 1+ Model in the design of the BASIC track, including the
levels of risk and reward under the BASIC track, and by allowing for
potentially lower, and therefore less burdensome, repayment mechanism
amounts for ACOs with relatively lower estimated ACO participant
Medicare FFS revenue compared to estimated benchmark expenditures for
their assigned Medicare FFS beneficiary population. Further, we will
evaluate the quality and financial performance of the Track 1+ Model
ACOs and consider the results of this evaluation in the development of
future policies for the Shared Savings Program.
Existing Track 1+ Model ACOs will be able to complete the remainder
of their current agreement period in the model, or terminate their
current participation agreements (for the Track 1+ Model and the Shared
Savings Program) and apply to enter a new Shared Savings Program
agreement period under either the BASIC track (Level E) or the ENHANCED
track (as described in section II.A.5. of this final rule).
Additionally, as discussed in section II.A.7.c.(1). of the August
2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41854 through 41855) and section V.B.1.c.(1).
of the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59951), ACOs currently
participating in the Track 1+ Model will not have the opportunity to
apply to use a SNF 3-day rule waiver starting on January 1, 2019, as a
result of our decision to forgo an annual application cycle for a
January 1, 2019 start date in the Shared Savings Program. However, as
discussed in section II.A.7.c.(1). of this final rule, we are making an
exception to the January 1 start date for use of a SNF 3-day rule
waiver to allow for a July 1, 2019 start date for eligible Track 1+
Model ACOs that apply for and are approved to use a SNF 3-day rule
waiver.
Comment: Some commenters supported the proposed approach to
incorporating Level E into the Shared Savings Program under a new BASIC
track, to make a participation option with the same level of risk and
potential reward as the Track 1+ Model a permanent part of the program.
However, a few commenters expressed concern about our plan to
discontinue the Track 1+ Model if we finalize the BASIC track design to
include a participation option with an equivalent level of risk and
potential reward as the Track 1+ Model. For example, one commenter
stated that some ACOs went into the Track 1+ Model in 2018 in the
middle of their current agreement period with the expectation that
Track 1+ would be available as a renewal option for a full 3-year
agreement period. Another commenter suggested, as an alternative
approach to redesigning the program's participation options, that CMS
eliminate downside risk requirements for low revenue ACOs by retaining
Track 1, eliminating the BASIC track, and allowing voluntary
participation in the Track 1+ Model (among other suggestions).
Response: We appreciate commenters' support for the BASIC track
design, which as discussed in section II.A.3. of this final rule, we
are finalizing to include Level E that is comparable to the level of
risk and reward as offered in the Track 1+ Model. We are therefore
discontinuing future application cycles for the Track 1+ Model, and we
will not accept new model participants for start
[[Page 68033]]
dates of July 1, 2019, or in subsequent years. Further, under our final
policies for determining participation options, discussed in section
II.A.5.c. of this final rule, an ACO with a first or second agreement
period beginning in 2016 or 2017 identified as a high revenue ACO and
experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives based
on prior participation in the Track 1+ Model may renew for its next
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, or January 1, 2020
(respectively) under Level E of the BASIC track. Further, eligible ACOs
identified as low revenue ACOs and experienced with performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiatives (including based on the participation of
the ACO or its ACO participants in the Track 1+ Model) may also
participate for up to two agreement periods under Level E of the BASIC
track.
3. Applicability of Final Policies To Track 1+ Model ACOs Through
Revised Program Regulations or Revisions to Track 1+ Model
Participation Agreements
In section II.F. of the August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41913
through 41914), we provided a comprehensive discussion of the
applicability of the proposed policies to Track 1+ Model ACOs to allow
these ACOs to better prepare for their future years of participation in
the program and the Track 1+ Model. We explained that there are two
ways in which the proposed policies would become applicable to Track 1+
Model ACOs: (1) Through revisions to existing regulations that
currently apply to Track 1+ Model ACOs, and (2) through revisions to
the ACO's Track 1+ Model Participation Agreement. In the November 2018
final rule, we described the applicability of certain final policies
adopted in that final rule to Track 1+ Model ACOs (83 FR 59988 through
59990).
Generally, comments regarding the application of specific proposals
to Track 1+ Model ACOs have been addressed as part of the discussion of
comments in the relevant section of this final rule. Accordingly, in
this section of this final rule, we are not repeating comments related
to the applicability of the proposed policies to ACOs participating in
the Track 1+ Model.
Therefore, unless specified otherwise, the changes to the program's
regulations finalized in this final rule that are applicable to Shared
Savings Program ACOs within a current agreement period will apply to
ACOs in the Track 1+ Model in the same way that they apply to ACOs in
Track 1, so long as the applicable regulation has not been waived under
the Track 1+ Model. Similarly, to the extent that certain requirements
of the regulations that apply to ACOs under Track 2 or Track 3 have
been incorporated for ACOs in the Track 1+ Model under the terms of the
Track 1+ Model Participation Agreement, any changes to those
regulations as finalized in this final rule will also apply to ACOs in
the Track 1+ Model in the same way that they apply to ACOs in Track 2
or Track 3. For example, the following final policies will apply to
Track 1+ Model ACOs:
Changes to the repayment mechanism requirements (see
section II.A.6.c. of this final rule). We believe these requirements
are similar to the requirements under which Track 1+ Model ACOs
established their repayment mechanisms, such that no revision to
those arrangements will be required. Further, pursuant to the
changes to the repayment mechanism requirements that we are adopting
in this final rule, we note that any Track 1+ Model ACO that seeks
to renew its Shared Savings Program participation agreement will be
permitted to use its existing repayment mechanism arrangement to
support its continued participation in the Shared Savings Program
under a two-sided model in its next agreement period, provided that
the amount and duration of the repayment mechanism arrangement are
updated as specified by CMS.
For the performance year beginning on July 1, 2019 and
each subsequent performance year, the requirement to notify Medicare
FFS beneficiaries regarding voluntary alignment by providing each
beneficiary with a standardized written notice prior to or at the
first primary care visit of each performance year (section
II.C.3.a.(2). of this final rule).
We also intend to apply the following policies finalized in this
final rule to Track 1+ Model ACOs through an amendment to the Track
1+ Model Participation Agreement executed by CMS and the ACO:
Monitoring for and consequences of poor financial
performance (section II.A.5.d. of this final rule).
Revising the MSR/MLR to address small population sizes
(section II.A.6.b.(3). of this final rule).
Payment consequences of early termination for ACOs
under performance-based risk (section II.A.6.d. of this final rule).
Certain requirements related to the furnishing of
telehealth services beginning on January 1, 2020, as provided under
section 1899(l) of the Act (see section II.B.2.b.(2). of this final
rule). As previously described, the Bipartisan Budget Act provides
for coverage of certain telehealth services furnished by physicians
and practitioners in ACOs participating in a model tested or
expanded under section 1115A of the Act that operate under a two-
sided model and for which beneficiaries are assigned to the ACO
using a prospective assignment method. ACOs participating in the
Track 1+ Model meet these criteria. We believe it is appropriate to
apply the same requirements under the Track 1+ Model with respect to
telehealth services furnished under section 1899(l) of the Act that
apply to other Shared Savings Program ACOs that are applicable ACOs
for purposes of that subsection. This will ensure consistency across
program operations, payments, and beneficiary protection
requirements for Track 1+ Model ACOs and other Shared Savings
Program ACOs with respect to telehealth services furnished under
section 1899(l) of the Act.
III. Provisions of the December 2017 Interim Final Rule With Comment
Period and Analysis of and Response to Public Comments
A. Background
In December 2017, we issued an interim final rule with comment
period titled ``Medicare Shared Savings Program: Extreme and
Uncontrollable Circumstances Policies for Performance Year 2017''
(hereinafter referred to as the December 2017 interim final rule with
comment period''), which appeared in the Federal Register on December
26, 2017 (82 FR 60912). In the December 2017 interim final rule with
comment period, we established policies for assessing the financial and
quality performance of Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings
Program) Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) affected by extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances during performance year 2017, including
the applicable quality reporting period for the performance year. Under
the Shared Savings Program, providers of services and suppliers that
participate in ACOs continue to receive traditional Medicare FFS
payments under Parts A and B, but the ACO may be eligible to receive a
shared savings payment if it meets specified quality and savings
requirements. ACOs in performance-based risk tracks may also share in
losses. The December 2017 interim final rule with comment period
established extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies for the
Shared Savings Program that applied to ACOs subject to extreme and
uncontrollable events, such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and
the California wildfires, during performance year 2017, including the
applicable quality data reporting period for the performance year.
We received 11 timely pieces of correspondence in response to the
December 2017 interim final rule with comment period. In the following
sections of this final rule, we summarize and respond to these public
comments.
[[Page 68034]]
B. Shared Savings Program Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstances
Policies for Performance Year 2017
In the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period we
expressed our agreement with stakeholders that the financial and
quality performance of ACOs located in areas subject to extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances could be significantly and adversely
affected. We also agreed that due to the widespread disruptions that
occurred during 2017 in areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and
Maria, and the California wildfires, new policies were warranted for
assessing quality and financial performance of Shared Savings Program
ACOs in the affected areas. We believed it was appropriate to adopt
policies to address stakeholder concerns that displacement of
beneficiaries may make it difficult for ACOs to access medical record
data required for quality reporting, and might reduce the beneficiary
response rate on survey measures. In addition, medical records needed
for quality reporting may have been inaccessible. We also believed it
was appropriate to adopt policies to address stakeholders' concerns
that ACOs might be held responsible for sharing losses with the
Medicare program resulting from catastrophic events outside the ACO's
control given the increase in utilization, migration of patient
populations leaving the impacted areas, and the mandatory use of
natural disaster payment modifiers making it difficult to identify
whether a claim would otherwise have been denied under normal Medicare
fee-for-service (FFS) rules.
Prior to the issuance of the December 2017 interim final rule with
comment period, we did not have policies under the Shared Savings
Program for addressing ACO quality performance scoring and the
determination of the shared losses owed by ACOs participating under
performance-based risk tracks in the event of an extreme or
uncontrollable circumstance. In the interim final rule with comment
period titled Medicare Program; Quality Payment Program: Extreme and
Uncontrollable Circumstance Policy for the Transition Year that
appeared in the Federal Register on November 16, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as the Quality Payment Program IFC) (82 FR 53895), we
established an automatic policy to address extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances, including Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, for the
Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) for the 2017 performance
year. (The specific regions identified as being affected by Hurricanes
Harvey, Irma, and Maria for the 2017 MIPS performance year are provided
in detail in section III.B.1.e. of the Quality Payment Program IFC (82
FR 53898)). In the Quality Payment Program IFC, we stated that should
additional extreme and uncontrollable circumstances arise for the 2017
MIPS performance period that trigger the automatic extreme and
uncontrollable circumstance policy under the Quality Payment Program,
we would communicate that information through routine communication
channels, including but not limited to issuing program memoranda,
emails to stakeholders, and notices on the Quality Payment Program
website, qpp.cms.gov (82 FR 53897). For example, in the December 2017
interim final rule with comment period we noted that we had recently
issued guidance to stakeholders indicating that the MIPS Extreme and
Uncontrollable Circumstance Policy would also apply to MIPS eligible
clinicians affected by the California wildfires (see https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Payment-Program/Resource-Library/Interim-Final-Rule-with-Comment-fact-sheet.pdf).
In the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period, we
expressed the belief that it was also appropriate to establish
automatic extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies under the
Shared Savings Program for performance year 2017 due to the urgency of
providing relief to Shared Savings Program ACOs impacted by Hurricanes
Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and the California wildfires, because their
quality scores could have been adversely affected by these disasters
and some ACOs could have been at risk for additional shared losses due
to the costs associated with these extreme and uncontrollable events.
Therefore, given the broad impact of the three hurricanes and the
wildfires, and to address any additional extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances that could have arisen during 2017 or the quality data
reporting period for the performance year, we explained that we were
establishing the policies described in the December 2017 interim final
rule with comment period for the Shared Savings Program for performance
year 2017.
For program clarity and to reduce unnecessary burdens on affected
ACOs, we aligned the automatic extreme and uncontrollable circumstances
policies under the Shared Savings Program with the policy established
under the Quality Payment Program. Specifically, the Shared Savings
Program extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies would apply
when we determine that an event qualifies as an automatic triggering
event under the Quality Payment Program. We would use the determination
of an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance under the Quality Payment
Program, including the identification of affected geographic areas and
applicable time periods, for purposes of determining the applicability
of the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies with respect
to both financial performance and quality reporting under the Shared
Savings Program. These policies would also apply with respect to the
determination of an ACO's quality performance in the event that an
extreme and uncontrollable event occurred during the applicable quality
data reporting period for performance year 2017 and the reporting
period was not extended. We believed it was appropriate to extend these
policies to encompass the quality reporting period, unless the
reporting period was extended, because we would not have the quality
data necessary to measure an ACO's quality performance for 2017 if the
ACO was unable to submit its quality data as a result of a disaster
occurring during the submission window. We noted, for example, that if
an extreme and uncontrollable event were to occur in February 2018,
which would be during the quality data reporting period for performance
year 2017 that was then scheduled to end on March 16, 2018 at 8 p.m.
eastern daylight time, then the extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances policies would apply for quality data reporting for
performance year 2017, if the reporting period was not extended. We did
not believe it was appropriate to extend this policy to encompass the
quality data reporting period if the reporting period is extended
because affected ACOs would have an additional opportunity to submit
their quality data, enabling us to measure their quality performance in
2017. However, we noted that, because a disaster that occurs after the
end of the performance year would have no impact on the determination
of an ACO's financial performance for performance year 2017, we would
make no adjustment to shared losses in the event an extreme or
uncontrollable event occurred during the quality data reporting period.
Comment: Almost all stakeholders that submitted a comment in
response to the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period
expressed general support for addressing extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances in the Shared Savings Program, and no
[[Page 68035]]
commenters expressed general opposition. Most commenters also addressed
one or more of the specific policies described in that rule.
Response: We appreciate the comments that were offered and have
since implemented the policies finalized in the December 2017 interim
final rule with comment period when determining quality scores used in
performance year 2017 financial reconciliation and in determining
shared losses owed for performance year 2017 by ACOs in two-sided
models.
We considered the comments received in response to the December
2017 interim final rule with comment period in developing our proposals
to extend the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies that
were established for performance year 2017 to performance year 2018 and
subsequent performance years. These proposals were included in the
August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41900-41906). In the November 2018
final rule (83 FR 59968-59979), we adopted final policies for
determining the quality performance of and mitigating shared losses
owed by Shared Savings Program ACOs affected by extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances in performance year 2018 and subsequent
performance years.
In the remainder of this section, we will summarize and respond to
public comments submitted in response to the December 2017 interim
final rule with comment period.
Comment: Several commenters supported aligning Shared Savings
Program policies surrounding extreme and uncontrollable circumstances
with the policies established under the Quality Payment Program for
performance year 2017, including the identification of an automatic
triggering event and affected geographic areas, with a commenter
expressing the belief that such alignment should also apply for future
performance years. A few commenters supporting alignment across these
programs urged CMS to be more transparent and to improve communication
to ACOs regarding affected areas and applicable time periods, as well
as options available to affected ACOs.
A commenter supported the goal of alignment across programs, but
urged CMS to monitor, evaluate, and modify, if necessary, the policies
included in the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period to
ensure that Shared Savings Program participants do not experience
unintended consequences from use of Quality Payment Program
determinations regarding triggering events and affected counties. This
commenter raised the possibility that a triggering event determined
under Quality Payment Program could have a different impact in terms of
scope and severity on ACOs participating in the Shared Savings program.
A commenter did not opine on whether program policies should be aligned
with the Quality Payment Program but expressed the belief that any
determination of affected counties should include both Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated ``Public Assistance'' and
FEMA-designated ``Individual Assistance'' areas. Another commenter
recommended that the determination of the time period for an extreme
and uncontrollable event be made consistent with the timelines for the
emergency declarations by the Federal government.
Response: We appreciate the comments supporting the alignment of
the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies under the Shared
Savings Program with policies under the Quality Payment Program with
respect to identifying automatic triggering events and the affected
geographic areas. We continue to believe, as we described in the
December 2017 interim final rule with comment period, that this
approach avoids confusion and reduces unnecessary burdens on affected
ACOs. Accordingly, we finalized the extension of this policy for
performance year 2018 and future years in the November 2018 final rule
(83 FR 59969-59973).
In the Quality Payment Program IFC we explained that we anticipated
that the types of events that could trigger the extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances policies would be events designated by a
FEMA major disaster or a public health emergency declared by the
Secretary, although we indicated that we would review each situation on
a case-by-case basis (82 FR 53897). While we favor alignment across the
two programs for the aforementioned reasons and expect to consider
declarations made by other Federal government agencies, we continue to
believe that it is important to maintain a degree of flexibility to
best respond to the circumstances of an individual emergency and
decline to adopt fixed criteria for determining triggering events and
affected areas. We note that for performance year 2017 information on
triggering events and affected areas was made available through
publicly available QPP fact sheets (for example: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Payment-Program/Resource-Library/Interim-Final-Rule-with-Comment-fact-sheet.pdf). Additionally, we used the time periods
associated with public health emergencies declared by the Secretary.
Following the declaration of a public health emergency, the Secretary
may temporarily modify or waive certain Medicare requirements to
support the ability of health care providers to provide timely care to
people impacted by an emergency or disaster to the maximum extent
feasible. For consistency, we believe that it is appropriate to use the
same time periods when implementing the Shared Savings Program extreme
and uncontrollable circumstances policies. We also believe that this
approach is transparent as the dates of such emergencies are publicly
available on the CMS Emergency Response and Recovery website (now
renamed the Emergency Preparedness & Response Operations website,
https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/Emergency/EPRO/EPRO-Home.html). Accordingly, we anticipate continuing to follow this
approach going forward.
1. Determination of Quality Performance Scores for ACOs in Affected
Areas
ACOs and their ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers are
frequently located across several different geographic regions or
localities, serving a mix of beneficiaries who may be differentially
impacted by hurricanes, wildfires, or other triggering events.
Therefore, we needed to establish a policy for determining when an ACO,
which may have ACO participants and ACO providers/suppliers located in
multiple geographic areas, should qualify for the automatic extreme and
uncontrollable circumstance policies for the determination of quality
performance. We explained that we would determine whether an ACO had
been affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance by
determining whether 20 percent or more of the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries resided in counties designated as an emergency declared
area in performance year 2017, as determined under the Quality Payment
Program as discussed in section III.B.1.e. of the Quality Payment
Program IFC (82 FR 53898) or the ACO's legal entity was located in such
an area. An ACO's legal entity location would be based on the address
on file for the ACO in CMS' ACO application and management system. We
used 20 percent of the ACO's assigned beneficiary population as the
minimum threshold to establish an ACO's eligibility for the policies
regarding quality reporting and quality performance scoring included in
the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period because we
believed the 20 percent threshold provided a reasonable way to identify
ACOs whose
[[Page 68036]]
quality performance may have been adversely affected by an extreme or
uncontrollable circumstance, while excluding ACOs whose performance
would not likely be significantly affected. The 20 percent threshold
was selected to account for the effect of an extreme or uncontrollable
circumstance on an ACO that has the minimum number of assigned
beneficiaries to be eligible for the program (5,000 beneficiaries), and
in consideration of the average total number of unique beneficiaries
for whom quality information is required to be reported in the combined
CAHPS survey sample (860 beneficiaries) and the CMS web interface
sample (approximately 3,500 beneficiaries). (There may be some overlap
between the CAHPS sample and the CMS web interface sample.) Therefore,
we estimated that an ACO with an assigned population of 5,000
beneficiaries typically would be required to report quality information
on a total of 4,000 beneficiaries. Thus, we believed that the 20-
percent threshold would ensure that an ACO with the minimum number of
assigned beneficiaries would have an adequate number of beneficiaries
across the CAHPS and CMS web interface samples in order to fully report
on these measures. However, we also understood that some ACOs that have
fewer than 20 percent of their assigned beneficiaries residing in
affected areas have a legal entity that is located in an emergency
declared area. Consequently, their ability to quality report may have
been equally impacted since the ACO legal entity may have been unable
to collect the information from the ACO participants or may have
experienced infrastructure issues related to capturing, organizing and
reporting the data to CMS. If less than 20 percent of the ACO's
assigned beneficiaries resided in an affected area and the ACO's legal
entity was not located in a county designated as an affected area, then
we noted that we believed that there was unlikely to be a significant
impact upon the ACO's ability to report or on the representativeness of
the quality performance score that would be determined for the ACO.
We noted that we would determine what percentage of the ACO's
performance year assigned population was affected by a disaster based
on the final list of beneficiaries assigned to the ACO for the
performance year. Although beneficiaries are assigned to ACOs under
Track 1 and Track 2 based on preliminary prospective assignment with
retrospective reconciliation after the end of the performance year, we
noted that these ACOs would be able to use their quarterly assignment
lists, which include beneficiaries' counties of residence, for early
insight into whether they are likely to meet the 20 percent threshold.
For purposes of the December 2017 interim final rule with comment
period, we used preliminary information on beneficiary assignment for
the 2017 performance year to estimate the number of ACOs that were
affected by the hurricanes and the California wildfires in 2017. We
estimated that 105 of the 480 ACOs (approximately 22 percent) would
meet the minimum threshold of having 20 percent or more of their
assigned beneficiaries residing in an area designated as impacted by
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and the California wildfires or
have their legal entity located in one of these areas. Of the ACOs that
we originally estimated would be impacted by the disasters in 2017, 92
percent had more than 20 percent of their assigned beneficiaries
residing in emergency declared areas.
For purposes of determining quality performance scoring for
performance year 2017, we noted that if 20 percent or more of an ACO's
assigned beneficiaries resided in an area impacted by the disaster or
the ACO's legal entity was located in such an area, the ACO's minimum
quality score would be set to equal the mean Shared Savings Program ACO
quality score for all ACOs for performance year 2017. We would set the
minimum quality score equal to the mean quality score for all Shared
Savings Program ACOs nationwide, because the mean reflects the full
range of quality performance across all ACOs in the Shared Savings
Program. More specifically, the mean ACO quality score is equal to the
combined ACO quality score for all ACOs meeting the quality performance
standard for the performance year divided by the total number of ACOs
meeting the quality performance standard for the performance year. To
illustrate, we noted that the mean Shared Savings Program ACO quality
performance score for all participating ACOs for performance year 2016
was approximately 95 percent. We also explained that in the event an
affected ACO is able to complete quality reporting for performance year
2017, and the ACO's calculated quality score is higher than the mean
Shared Savings Program ACO quality score, we would apply the higher
score.
In earlier rulemaking, we finalized a policy under which ACOs that
demonstrate quality improvement on established quality measures from
year-to-year will be eligible for up to 4 bonus points per domain (79
FR 67927 through 67931, Sec. 425.502(e)(4)). To earn bonus points, an
ACO must demonstrate a net improvement in performance on measures
within a domain. We noted in the December 2017 interim final rule with
comment period that if an ACO was not able to complete quality
reporting for performance year 2017, it would not be possible for us to
assess the ACO's improvement on established quality measures since
performance year 2016. Therefore, if an ACO receives a quality score
for performance year 2017 based on the mean quality score, the ACO
would not be eligible for bonus points awarded based on quality
improvement.
We noted our belief that it was appropriate to adjust the quality
performance scores for ACOs in affected areas because we anticipated
that these ACOs would likely be unable to collect or report the
necessary information to CMS as a result of the extreme and
uncontrollable circumstance, and/or the ACO's quality performance score
would be significantly and adversely affected. Section 1899(b)(3)(C) of
the Act gives us the authority to establish the quality performance
standards used to assess the quality of care furnished by ACOs.
Accordingly, we modified the quality performance standard specified
under Sec. 425.502 by amending paragraph (e)(4) and adding a new
paragraph (f) to address potential adjustments to the quality
performance score for performance year 2017 of ACOs determined to be
affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. We stated that
for performance year 2017, including the applicable quality data
reporting period for the performance year if the reporting period is
not extended, in the event that we determined that 20 percent or more
of an ACO's final list of assigned beneficiaries for the performance
year, as determined under subpart E of the Shared Savings Program
regulations, resided in an area that is affected by an extreme and
uncontrollable circumstance as determined under the Quality Payment
Program, or that the ACO's legal entity was located in such an area, we
would use the following approach to calculate the ACO's quality
performance score instead of the methodology specified in Sec.
425.502(a) through (e).
The ACO's minimum quality score would be set to equal the
mean Shared Savings Program ACO quality score for performance year
2017.
If the ACO is able to completely and accurately report all
quality measures, we would use the higher of the ACO's
[[Page 68037]]
quality score or the mean Shared Savings Program ACO quality score.
If the ACO receives a quality score based on the mean, the
ACO would not be eligible for bonus points awarded based on quality
improvement.
We would apply determinations made under the Quality Payment
Program with respect to whether an extreme and uncontrollable
circumstance has occurred and the affected areas. We would have sole
discretion to determine the time period during which an extreme and
uncontrollable circumstance occurred, the percentage of the ACO's
assigned beneficiaries residing in the affected areas, and the location
of the ACO legal entity.
We also stated that, for purposes of the MIPS APM scoring standard,
MIPS eligible clinicians in Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs that
did not completely report quality for 2017; and therefore, received the
mean ACO quality score under the Shared Savings Program would receive a
score of zero percent in the MIPS quality performance category.
However, these MIPS eligible clinicians would receive a score of 100
percent in the improvement activities (IAs) performance category, which
would be sufficient for them to receive a 2017 MIPS final score above
the performance threshold. This would result in at least a slight
positive MIPS payment adjustment in 2019. Additionally, if the ACO
participants were able to report advancing care information (ACI) (now
referred to as the promoting interoperability category), the MIPS
eligible clinicians in the ACO would receive an ACI performance
category score under the APM scoring standard, which would further
increase their final score under MIPS.
Comment: Several commenters supported considering ACOs to be
impacted by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance if 20 percent or
more of their assigned beneficiaries reside in an affected area or if
the ACO's legal entity is located in such an area. However, a commenter
requested that CMS continue to monitor the effects of this policy for
each new triggering event to determine whether the 20 percent threshold
is appropriate. The commenter explained that it could be necessary to
lower the threshold if it is observed that ACOs with a smaller
percentage of beneficiaries residing in an affected area display
significantly reduced performance compared to prior years. Another
commenter recommended that CMS analyze test cases to determine if
quality performance could be affected at lower thresholds. The same
commenter also suggested that CMS apply the extreme and uncontrollable
circumstance policy to ACOs for which 50 percent of NPIs billing under
the ACO are located in an impacted area. Another commenter noted it was
unclear whether 20 percent is the appropriate threshold and believes
that CMS should observe the effect of the 2017 events on ACOs and
develop more flexible permanent policies to fully capture ACOs for
which quality performance might have been affected. Another commenter,
while agreeing with the criteria described in the December 2017 interim
final rule with comment period, urged CMS to also provide an option for
ACOs that do not meet the criteria to submit a hardship request if they
believe that they were significantly affected by an extreme and
uncontrollable event. They explained that CMS could review and approve
such requests on a case-by-case basis.
Response: We continue to believe that the criteria that we adopted
for performance year 2017 in the December 2017 interim final rule with
comment period, and which we used for determining performance year 2017
quality scores, are reasonable and offer predictability. We believe
that using a threshold that may change with each triggering event would
provide less certainty, especially if such a threshold could not be
determined until after the disaster has occurred. We believe that the
20 percent threshold, which was influenced by population size
considerations, remains a reasonable level. At this level, the
threshold helps to ensure that an ACO with the minimum number of
assigned beneficiaries to be eligible to participate in the program
(5,000 beneficiaries) would still have an adequate number of non-
affected beneficiaries on which to report on CAHPS and CMS web
interface measures. Furthermore, based on our experience from
performance year 2017, we do not believe that this threshold is too
high as we observed that over 40 percent of ACOs with more than 20
percent of beneficiaries residing in disaster-affected areas received
their own quality score because it was higher than the average score.
We will continue to monitor this statistic for events occurring in
future performance years to gauge whether the threshold remains
appropriate.
In the November 2018 final rule, we modified the policy adopted in
the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period of using an
ACO's final assigned beneficiary list for performance year 2017 to
determine the percentage of assigned beneficiaries residing in an
affected area, and finalized a policy for performance year 2018 and
subsequent performance years of using an ACO's assignment list used for
the Web Interface sample (typically the quarter 3 assignment list) to
determine the percentage of assigned beneficiaries residing in an
affected area. This refinement to our approach, which was based on our
experience in applying the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances
policies for performance year 2017, will allow ACOs to determine before
the end of the quality reporting period whether they meet this
criterion based on triggering events that have occurred up until that
time. Given the timing of December 2017 interim final rule with comment
period, this type of advance notice was not feasible. This modification
of the policy for future performance years was also influenced by
comments that we received in response to the December 2017 interim
final rule with comment period, described earlier in this section,
which requested that CMS provide better communication to affected ACOs
regarding their options.
While we considered a commenter's suggestion to expand the criteria
for determining impacted ACOs to include those ACOs for which 50
percent or more of the NPIs billing under the TINs of the ACO
participants are located in an impacted area, we believed that
including this additional criterion would create additional operational
complexity and less transparency as we do not currently provide
information on the location of ACO providers/suppliers in program
reports. We therefore elected not to propose this option in the August
2018 proposed rule and, in response to a similar recommendation from a
commenter, declined to adopt this approach in the November 2018 final
rule (83 FR 59972). In response to the commenters that suggested we
create a hardship exceptions process, we note that in the December 2017
interim final rule with comment period and the November 2018 final
rule, we have elected to adopt automatic policies to address extreme
and uncontrollable circumstances in lieu of hardship requests that must
be considered on a case-by-case basis in order to increase certainty
and reduce administrative burden for both ACOs and CMS.
Comment: We received several comments that supported using the
higher of the ACO's own quality score or the mean quality score. A
commenter agreed that an ACO should not be eligible for bonus points
based on quality improvement if the ACO receives the mean quality
score. A few others that supported using the higher of the ACO's own
score or the national mean were concerned that there would
[[Page 68038]]
be no way for ACOs receiving the mean score to demonstrate quality
improvement or receive bonus points. They recommended that CMS consider
alternative mechanisms by which these ACOs could demonstrate quality
improvement with a commenter suggesting that CMS recognize and account
for quality improvement efforts made by ACOs outside the time period
affected by an extreme and uncontrollable event. Another commenter did
not opine on the use of the mean quality score but requested
clarification on how bonus points would be determined when a state of
emergency crossed years.
Response: We implemented the policy of using the higher of the
ACO's own quality score or the mean quality score that was finalized in
the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period in determining
quality performance for affected ACOs for performance year 2017. In the
August 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41900-41903), we proposed to extend
this policy for performance year 2018 and subsequent performance years,
and in the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59969-59974), we finalized
this proposal. We appreciate the support offered for this policy among
stakeholders that submitted comments in response to the December 2017
interim final rule with comment period.
In the November 2018 final rule, we also adopted for performance
year 2018 and subsequent performance years the policy under which an
ACO that receives the mean Shared Savings Program quality performance
score for a given performance year will not be eligible for bonus
points awarded based on quality performance during that year. However,
it is worth noting that in calculating the mean quality score we
include the scores of ACOs that earned bonus points for quality
improvement as well as the scores of 100 percent earned by ACOs in
their first performance year for which the quality performance standard
is based on complete and accurate reporting of all quality measures.
ACOs that failed to meet the quality performance standard are excluded
from the mean.
In the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59969-59974) we finalized a
policy under which, if an ACO receives the mean score for a performance
year, in the next performance year for which the ACO reports quality
data and receives a quality performance score based on its own
performance, we will measure quality improvement based on a comparison
between the ACO's performance in that year and in the most recently
available prior performance year in which the ACO reported quality. We
explained that under this approach, the comparison will continue to be
between consecutive years of quality reporting, but these years may not
be consecutive calendar years. If an ACO reports quality data in a year
in which it is affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance,
but receives the national mean quality score, we will use the ACO's own
quality performance to determine quality improvement bonus points in
the following year. For example, if an ACO reported quality data in
years 1, 2, and 3 of an agreement period, but received the national
mean quality score in year 2 as the result of an extreme or
uncontrollable circumstance, we would determine quality improvement
bonus points for year 3 by comparing the ACO's year 3 quality
performance with its year 2 performance. In contrast, if the ACO
received the mean score in year 2 because it did not report quality, we
would compare year 3 with year 1 to determine the bonus points for year
3.
For events for which the applicable time period for includes
multiple calendar years, we intend to treat the portion of the period
falling within each year as if it were a separate event for purposes of
identifying ACOs eligible for the alternative quality scoring
methodology and for computing any adjustment to shared losses. Consider
for example a hypothetical event for which the applicable time period
spanned from September 2017 to March 2018. An ACO would be deemed to be
affected by this event in performance year 2017 for purposes of quality
scoring if 20 percent or more of the ACO's final performance year 2017
assigned beneficiaries resided in an affected geographic area or the
ACO's legal entity was located in such an area, and we would use the
alternative quality performance scoring policy finalized in the
December 2017 interim final rule with comment period for performance
year 2017 to determine its quality performance score for that
performance year. The same ACO would be deemed affected by the disaster
in performance year 2018 if 20 percent or more of the ACO's quarter 3
assigned beneficiary population (that is, the population used for Web
Interface sampling) resided in an affected area or the ACO's legal
entity was located in such an area. We would determine the quality
performance score for the ACO for performance year 2018 using the
alternative quality performance scoring policy adopted in the November
2018 final rule for performance year 2018. An ACO receiving the mean
quality score in either year would not be eligible for bonus points for
quality improvement in that year although, as previously noted, the
mean score would include the scores of ACOs that earned bonus points
for quality improvement as well as scores of 100 percent earned by ACOs
in their first performance year. If a disaster-affected ACO receives
its own quality score for performance year 2017 it would be eligible
for bonus points based on a comparison of its 2017 quality performance
and 2016 quality performance. If the ACO receives its own quality score
for performance year 2018 it would be eligible for bonus points based
on a comparison of its 2018 quality performance and its quality
performance in the most recent prior year in which it reported quality.
Comment: A commenter believed that the quality performance scores
for disaster-affected ACOs could be set to the mean, but these scores
should not be used to calculate future benchmarks or subsequent year
thresholds until complete and accurate reporting can be achieved.
Response: We appreciate this commenter's support of the policy to
set an ACO's quality score to the higher of its own calculated score or
the national mean. We would like to clarify that ACOs' quality
performance scores are not used to calculate quality measure
benchmarks. Rather, the quality measure benchmarks are calculating
using actual ACO performance and all other available and applicable
Medicare FFS data.
Comment: A commenter expressed the belief that an ACO that achieved
above-average quality performance in the prior performance year but is
unable to report quality data due to an extreme and uncontrollable
event in 2017, should not be penalized with a much lower quality score
for 2017. They recommended that in instances where an ACO is unable to
report quality data due to an extreme or uncontrollable event, CMS
should use the higher of the ACO's quality score from the prior
performance year or the mean quality score for all Shared Savings
Program ACOs for the current performance year.
Response: We acknowledge that the mean quality score could be
lower, or higher, than the score disaster-affected ACOs would have
received in the absence of a disaster. However, we have concerns with
the commenter's recommendation that we apply the higher of the ACO's
quality score from the prior year or the mean quality score. ACO
quality performance can vary from year-to-year and the fact that an ACO
had a high quality score in prior years does not necessarily guarantee
that the
[[Page 68039]]
ACO would have had an above average score in the affected year in the
absence of the natural disaster. This is particularly true for ACOs in
their early years of participation in the Shared Savings Program for
which the prior year's performance score may have included a higher
number of pay-for-reporting measures, thus making the quality scores
incomparable. Lastly, we would remind stakeholders that the national
mean quality score includes the quality scores of 100 percent earned by
ACOs in their first performance year, thus increasing the mean. For
these reasons, we did not employ this approach for performance year
2017 and neither proposed nor finalized this approach for performance
year 2018 and subsequent years.
Comment: A commenter sought clarification on whether an ACO would
have the opportunity to either opt-in or opt-out of the finalized
quality scoring policy for performance year 2019.
Response: The final policies for determining an ACO's quality
performance score in the event of an extreme and uncontrollable
circumstance are automatic, meaning that ACOs are not required to opt-
in and are not permitted to opt-out. As noted elsewhere in this
section, our intention in adopting automatic policies was to increase
certainty and reduce burden associated with optional or case-dependent
policies. Additionally, the policies are designed such that ACOs can
only benefit from the application of them. That is, if the ACO's
calculated quality score is higher than the mean quality score, the
ACO's higher calculated quality score will be used.
Comment: A commenter noted that impacted ACOs that are unable to
collect or report necessary quality information would also be very
likely to trigger the audit process. This commenter recommended that
any ACO for which quality performance was determined under the interim
final rules established in the December 2017 interim final rule with
comment period should not be subject to the Quality Measures Validation
(QMV) Audit Process if a high number of Medical Record Not Found (MRNF)
``skips'' are present.
Response: For performance year 2017, we considered whether an ACO
was affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance when
identifying which ACOs would be subject to a Quality Measures
Validation Audit of their CMS Web Interface data and we did not include
disaster-affected ACO that skipped an anomalously high number of
beneficiaries in the audit sample. We anticipate taking a similar
approach for performance year 2018 and future years.
Comment: We received several comments related to the interaction of
the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policy for quality
performance scoring and MIPS. We explained in the December 2017 interim
final rule with comment period that MIPS eligible clinicians in
Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs that do not completely report
quality for 2017 and therefore receive the mean ACO quality score would
receive a score of zero percent in the MIPS quality performance
category. However, these MIPS eligible clinicians would receive a score
of 100 percent in the improvement activities (IAs) performance
category, which would be enough for them to receive a 2017 MIPS final
score above the performance threshold. This would result in at least a
slight positive MIPS payment adjustment in 2019. We explained further
that if the ACO participants were able to report advancing care
information (ACI), the MIPS eligible clinicians in the ACO would
receive an ACI performance category score under the APM scoring
standard, which would further increase their final score under MIPS.
A commenter strongly opposed this approach and recommended that CMS
instead use the higher of the mean quality performance category score
or the organization's performance year 2016 quality performance
category score to determine the ACO's quality performance category
score under the MIPS APM scoring standard. They went on to note that
this would be particularly important in future years when the MIPS
minimum performance threshold will increase. A few other commenters
also expressed the belief that the approach used for performance year
2017 should not be used for future performance years. For example, a
commenter supported the approach used for performance year 2017 because
it would still allow MIPS eligible clinicians to receive a final score
above the performance threshold, but noted that, in future years,
receiving 100 percent for the improvement activities performance
category would not be sufficient to allow MIPS eligible clinicians in
the ACO to avoid a negative payment adjustment. They recommended that,
in this case, CMS should set the MIPS score equal to the performance
threshold. Another commenter suggested that CMS consider redistributing
the weights of the performance categories under the MIPS program as an
alternative, nothing that that under the Quality Payment Program, CMS
has policies allowing for redistribution of the weights of the
performance categories when warranted. A third commenter encouraged CMS
to automatically assign a neutral payment adjustment to eligible
clinicians in a MIPS APM ACO that is unable to report due to extreme
and uncontrollable circumstances. This commenter also recommended that
in a case in which the ACO is unable to report but the component
eligible clinician or TIN reports separately, CMS apply the higher of
the two scores.
Response: As we described in the December 2017 interim final rule
with comment period, and as commenters noted, for performance year
2017, for purposes of the APM scoring standard, MIPS eligible
clinicians in a disaster-affected ACO that did not report quality for
the performance year, and therefore received the mean quality score
under the Shared Savings Program, received a score of zero percent in
the MIPS quality performance category. In the August 2018 proposed rule
(83 FR 41902) and in the November 2018 final rule (83 FR 59974), we
clarified that for performance year 2018 and subsequent years, such
clinicians, would have the MIPS quality performance category reweighted
to zero percent, regardless of whether or not any of the ACO
participant TINs reported quality outside the ACO. This reweighting
under MIPS results in MIPS performance category weighting of 75 percent
for the Promoting Interoperability (PI) performance category and 25
percent for Improvement Activities performance category consistent with
our policy at Sec. 414.1370(h)(5)(i)(B). If, for any reason, the PI
performance category is also reweighted to zero, which could be more
likely when there is a disaster, there would be only one performance
category, triggering the policy under which the ACO would receive a
neutral (threshold) MIPS score, as provided in Sec. 414.1380(c).
However, if any of the ACO participant TINs do report PI, then the ACO
participant TIN or TINs' PI performance category scores would be used
to score the ACO under the MIPS scoring standard, the PI performance
category would not be reweighted, and the policy of assigning a neutral
(threshold) MIPS score would not be triggered. We believe that this
approach should mitigate the concerns raised by commenters as MIPS
eligible clinicians in a disaster-affected ACO receiving the mean
quality score under the Shared Savings Program will no longer receive a
zero percent score in the MIPS quality performance category as they
would have done under the performance year
[[Page 68040]]
2017 policy. Instead, this category would be reweighted to zero
percent.
2. Mitigating Shared Losses for ACOs Participating in a Performance-
Based Risk Track
In the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period, we
also modified the payment methodology under Tracks 2 and 3 established
under the authority of section 1899(i) of the Act to mitigate shared
losses owed by ACOs affected by extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances during performance year 2017. We explained that under
this policy, we would reduce the ACO's shared losses, if any,
determined to be owed under the existing methodology for calculating
shared losses in part 425, subpart G of the regulations by an amount
determined by multiplying the shared losses by two factors: (1) The
percentage of the total months in the performance year affected by an
extreme and uncontrollable circumstance; and (2) the percentage of the
ACO's assigned beneficiaries who resided in an area affected by an
extreme and uncontrollable circumstance. We would determine the
percentage of the ACO's performance year assigned beneficiary
population that was affected by the disaster based on the final list of
beneficiaries assigned to the ACO for the performance year. For
example, assume that an ACO is determined to owe shared losses of
$100,000 for performance year 2017, a disaster was declared for October
through December during the performance year, and 25 percent of the
ACO's assigned beneficiaries resided in the disaster area. In this
scenario, we would adjust the ACO's losses in the following manner:
$100,000-($100,000 x 0.25 x 0.25) = $100,000-$6,250 = $93,750.
We believed it was appropriate to adopt this policy to address
stakeholders' concerns that ACOs could be held responsible for sharing
losses with the Medicare program resulting from catastrophic events
outside the ACO's control given the increase in utilization, difficulty
of coordinating care for patient populations leaving the impacted
areas, and the mandatory use of natural disaster payment modifiers
making it difficult to identify whether a claim would otherwise have
been denied under normal Medicare FFS rules. Absent this relief, we
believed ACOs that were then participating in Tracks 2 and 3 might
reconsider whether they would be able to continue their participation
in the Shared Savings Program under a performance-based risk track. We
noted that the approach we were adopting in the December 2017 interim
final rule with comment period would balance the need to offer relief
to affected ACOs with the need to continue to hold those ACOs
accountable for losses incurred during the months in which there was no
applicable disaster declaration and for the assigned beneficiary
population that was outside the area affected by the disaster. We also
noted that these policies would not change the status of Track 2 or
Track 3 of the Shared Savings Program as an Advanced Alternative
Payment Model (APM) for purposes of the Quality Payment Program or
prevent an eligible clinician in a performance-based risk ACO from
becoming a Qualifying APM Participant for purposes of the APM incentive
under the Quality Payment Program.
We also explored an alternative approach for mitigating the
potential losses for ACOs in performance-based risk tracks that were
affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. Under this
approach, we would remove claims for services furnished to assigned
beneficiaries in the impacted areas by an ACO participant that are
submitted with a natural disaster modifier before calculating financial
performance. However, we believed that this alternative approach could,
for some affected ACOs, result in the exclusion of a significant amount
of their total claims at financial reconciliation, making it very
difficult to measure the ACOs' financial performance.
We also emphasized that all ACOs would continue to be entitled to
share in any savings they may achieve for performance year 2017. The
calculation of savings and the determination of shared savings payment
amounts would not be affected by the policies to address extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances. ACOs in all three tracks of the program
would receive shared savings payments, if any, as determined under part
425 subpart G.
We also considered the possible impact of extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances on an ACO's expenditures for purposes of
determining the benchmark (Sec. 425.602 and Sec. 425.603). The
additional costs incurred as a result of an extreme or uncontrollable
circumstance would likely impact the benchmark determined for the ACO's
subsequent agreement period in the Shared Savings Program, as
performance years of the current agreement period become the historical
benchmark years for the subsequent agreement period. We noted our
belief that the increase in expenditures for a particular calendar year
would result in a higher benchmark value when the same calendar year is
used to determine the ACO's historical benchmark, and in calculating
adjustments to the rebased benchmark based on regional FFS expenditures
(Sec. 425.603). We also noted our belief that any effect of including
these additional expenditures in determining the ACO's benchmark for
the subsequent agreement period could be mitigated somewhat because the
ACO's expenditures during the three base years included in the
benchmark are weighted equally, and regional expenditures would also
increase as a result of the disaster. Therefore, we anticipated the
effect on the regional adjustment under Sec. 425.603(c)(9) would be
minimal. Although we did not modify the program's historical benchmark
methodology in the December 2017 interim final rule with comment
period, we noted that we planned to observe the impact of the 2017
hurricanes and wildfires on ACO expenditures, and that we might revisit
the need to make adjustments to the methodology for calculating the
benchmark in future rulemaking.
We explained that to exercise our authority under section
1899(i)(3) of the Act to use other payment models, we must demonstrate
that the payment model--(1) does not result in program expenditures
that are higher than those that would have resulted under the statutory
payment model under section 1899(d) of the Act and (2) will improve the
quality and efficiency of items and services furnished under Medicare.
In assessing the impacts of the policy for mitigating shared losses for
Track 2 and Track 3 ACOs affected by extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances in 2017, we considered: The impact of the potential loss
of participation in the program by ACOs affected by disasters should we
not implement the policy described in the December 2017 interim final
rule with comment period, and the anticipated minimal impact of
adjusting losses for ACOs affected by disasters, as described in the
regulatory impact statement for the December 2017 interim final rule
with comment period. On the basis of this assessment, we believed that
incorporating this extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policy for
performance year 2017 into the payment methodologies for Tracks 2 and 3
would meet the requirements of section 1899(i) of the Act by not
increasing expenditures above the costs that would be incurred under
the statutory payment methodology under section 1899(d) of the Act and
by encouraging affected ACOs to remain in the program, which we
believed would
[[Page 68041]]
increase the quality and efficiency of the items and services furnished
to the beneficiaries they serve. We also noted that to the extent the
policies in the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period
constituted a change to the Shared Savings Program payment methodology
for 2017 after the start of the performance year, we believed that,
consistent with section 1871(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, and for reasons
discussed in section III of the IFC, it would be contrary to the public
interest not to adjust the shared losses calculated for ACOs in Tracks
2 and 3 to reflect the impact of the extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances during 2017.
We invited comments on the policies being finalized in the December
2017 interim final rule with comment period for performance year 2017,
including the applicable quality data reporting period for performance
year 2017 under the Shared Savings Program. We noted our belief that
these automatic extreme and uncontrollable circumstance policies would
reduce burden and financial uncertainty for ACOs, ACO participants, and
ACO providers/suppliers affected by catastrophes, including ACOs
affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and the California
wildfires, and would also align with existing Medicare policies under
the Quality Payment Program for 2017.
We also noted that in future rulemaking, we intended to propose
permanent policies under the Shared Savings Program to address extreme
and uncontrollable circumstances in future performance years.
Therefore, we also invited public comment on policies and issues that
we should consider when developing proposals for these permanent
policies.
We also welcomed comments on how to address the impact of extreme
and uncontrollable events on historical benchmark calculations, which
we would consider in developing any future proposals. In particular, we
sought comments as to whether and how the historical benchmark should
be adjusted to reflect extreme and uncontrollable events that occur
during a benchmark year, how to establish the threshold for determining
whether a significant change in expenditures occurred, whether and how
to account for changes in expenditures that have an aggregate positive
or negative impact on the historical benchmark, and whether and how to
reweight the benchmark years when calculating the historical benchmark
if one or more benchmark years is impacted by an extreme and
uncontrollable event.
Comment: The majority of stakeholders that submitted comments in
response to the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period
expressed support for the concept of mitigating shared losses for ACOs
in two-sided models that were affected by extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances, though several offered suggestions for modifying the
approach finalized for performance year 2017 or expanding its scope.
For example, a commenter recommended that should extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances affect ACOs in future years, CMS should
compare the expenditures for Track 2 and Track 3 ACOs in impacted areas
to the 2017 benchmarks to determine an approach that is fair and
statistically reliable; however, it was unclear whether the commenter
was suggesting that CMS compare expenditures to the historical
benchmarks computed for purposes of Shared Savings Program financial
calculations or to some other measure of expected 2017 spending. A
commenter noted that extreme and uncontrollable circumstances can
result in long-term disruptions in care beyond the time period during
which an area is declared a natural disaster area and recommended that
CMS consider a process for establishing a time period beyond the
timeframe of the disaster declaration during which CMS will continue to
mitigate an ACO's losses. Several commenters expressed the belief that
the policy adopted in the December 2017 interim final rule with comment
period did not go far enough and suggested that CMS consider waiving
shared losses completely or allowing two-sided ACOs to temporarily
convert to a one-sided model for affected years. One of these
commenters noted that this alternative would likely affect an ACO's
status as participating in an advanced APM but could prevent
organizations from terminating their participation in the Shared
Savings Program altogether and could provide an incentive for more
providers to take on downside risk. Another commenter also suggested
using a modifier to adjust shared losses but did not provide further
details on this approach. Another commenter agreed with CMS' decision
not to exclude claims submitted with a natural disaster modifier when
mitigating shared losses, noting that it is uncertain whether providers
submit claims with a modifier. This same commenter questioned what
would happen for shared losses mitigation in the event that a state of
emergency spans two calendar years.
Response: We appreciate the support commenters offered for taking
steps to mitigate the impacts of extreme and uncontrollable
circumstances on ACOs in two-sided models. We implemented the policy
finalized in the December 2017 interim final rule with comment period
for performance year 2017. There were 11 ACOs with shared losses for
the performance year. Because ACOs are not required to meet a minimum
threshold number of assigned beneficiaries in an affected area to
qualify for this policy, all eleven ACOs received an adjustment to
their shared losses ranging from $980 to over $400,000. While we are
sympathetic to the challenges faced by ACOs impacted by natural
disasters, we decline at this time to consider eliminating shared
losses for impacted ACOs or allowing ACOs to temporarily switch to a
one-sided model as we still believe that it is important for ACOs that
have taken on risk to be held accountable for shared losses incurred
during months in which there was no applicable disaster declaration and
for the assigned beneficiary population that was outside the area
affected by the disaster.
We also decline to adopt the other suggestions made by commenters,
such as continuing to mitigate shared losses over a longer time period
or to use payment modifier codes to adjust shared losses. For
performance year 2017, we used the time periods associated with public
health emergencies declared by the Secretary in applying the adjustment
to shared losses and we expect to continue this practice moving
forward. As described earlier in this section, we believe this approach
provides consistency with the time periods during which waivers of
other Medicare requirements are in place, as well as transparency. We
are concerned that an approach that would mitigate shared losses over
an extended period beyond the public health emergency declaration would
potentially need to be applied on a case-by-case basis to account for
the circumstances surrounding individual disasters. We wish to avoid
this type of policy as we are concerned that it would lead to delays in
determining whether relief would be available and create uncertainty
for ACOs. With respect to the suggestion that we use payment modifier
codes to adjust shared losses, as we describe later in this section, we
have concerns that, in practice, the payment modifier codes are not
used consistently and therefore would not provide an appropriate means
for adjusting shared losses.
In the November 2018 final rule, we extended the policy used to
mitigate shared losses for performance year 2017
[[Page 68042]]
to performance year 2018 and subsequent years. Accordingly, we would
like to clarify what would happen if the applicable time period for an
extreme and uncontrollable event spans two calendar years. Consider an
event with an applicable time period that spans from October in Year 1
through January in Year 2. In determining the adjustment to shared
losses in Year 1, we would use the percentage of the final Year 1
assigned beneficiary population residing in the affected area and the
percentage of Year 1 that was affected (2 of 12 months). In determining
the adjustment to shared losses in Year 2, we would use the percentage
of the Year 2 final assigned beneficiary population residing in the
affected area and the percentage of Year 2 that was affected (1 out of
12 months).
Comment: Several commenters encouraged CMS to also address the
financial impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances on the
determination of shared savings for ACOs in all tracks. A few noted
that all ACOs have invested significant resources to participate in the
Shared Savings Program and they are at risk of not being able to recoup
their investment if a natural disaster jeopardizes their opportunity to
share in savings.
Response: We appreciate the comments regarding the potential
impacts of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances on shared savings
payments. Some of the policies we have considered, such as using
natural disaster payment modifiers to identify and remove claims for
beneficiaries in affected areas when computing ACO expenditures, would
have the potential to address adverse impacts on both shared savings
and shared losses. However, based an analysis we performed of 2017
claims data for ACO assigned beneficiaries (see the November 2018 final
rule (83 FR 59976) for more details), we are concerned that natural
disaster payment modifier codes would not serve as a useful means for
comprehensively identifying relevant claims. We also have concerns that
removing claims for affected beneficiaries and time periods would add
considerable complexity and could lead to biased expenditure estimates.
Although we did not adopt an explicit adjustment to the shared
savings payment for disaster-affected ACOs in either the December 2017
interim final rule with comment period or the November 2018 final rule,
we note that our alternative methodology for quality scoring can
indirectly increase an ACO's shared savings payment. In performance
year 2017, 62 of 117 disaster-affected ACOs received the national mean
quality score, as it was higher than the score the ACO would have
received in the absence of the policy. A higher quality score increases
the final sharing rate that is applied to an ACO's total savings, and
thus can increase the ACO's shared savings payment.
Comment: A few stakeholders offered comments on whether or how CMS
should account for extreme and uncontrollable circumstances when
setting financial benchmarks for ACOs. A commenter supported the policy
of not making any changes to the benchmark but requested that CMS
continually monitor the impact of triggering events on an ACO's
benchmark for subsequent agreement periods, noting that it was possible
that some ACOs may have much lower costs in benchmark years as the
result of certain types of events and it would be unfair to penalize
these ACOs. Another commenter acknowledged the challenges of
appropriately adjusting benchmarks to reflect numerous possible
situations and the potential for unintended consequences. This
commenter requested that CMS provide more data on affected ACOs to
allow for the evaluation of potential benchmark adjustments. Another
commenter requested an example to demonstrate our view that the
anticipated effect of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances on
benchmarks that incorporate regional factors would be minimal. The same
commenter requested clarification of how benchmark calculations would
be affected in cases where an emergency spans two calendar years.
Response: We appreciate the comments and questions raised by
stakeholders regarding possible approaches for addressing extreme and
uncontrollable circumstances when calculating ACOs' historical
benchmarks. In the December 2017 interim final rule with comment
period, we declined to modify the program's historical benchmark
methodology for extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. In the August
2018 proposed rule (83 FR 41904-41906), we explained that we believed
our proposal to incorporate regional trend factors in our calculations
to establish and update the historical benchmark for all ACOs would
provide an inherent adjustment to the benchmark for expenditure
variations related to extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. In
section II.D. of this final rule, we are finalizing our proposals to
incorporate regional expenditures into the calculation of benchmark
trend and update factors for all ACOs, including those in their first
agreement period. We continue to believe that this methodology will
provide an inherent adjustment to the benchmark to account for the
impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances on ACO expenditures
without suffering from the drawbacks of some of other methods
considered, such as removing claims with disaster payment modifiers or
claims for beneficiaries in affected areas and time periods. However,
we will continue to monitor this approach and would propose
adjustments, if needed, through future rulemaking.
Comment: A commenter requested that CMS consider the impact on ACOs
when a triggering event reduces the number of assigned beneficiaries
below 5,000. The commenter suggested that CMS establish policies
ensuring that an ACO whose assigned beneficiary population decreases
below the threshold of 5,000 as the result of an extreme and
uncontrollable event be given adequate time to rebuild its patient
population prior to the next agreement period. Another commenter
questioned whether ACOs falling below the threshold as the result of a
disaster would be subject to a penalty. The same commenter requested
clarification on how the percentage of ACO population affected by a
disaster would be determined for a Track 3 ACO when assigned
beneficiaries have moved out of the area.
Response: ACOs that are subject to the prospective beneficiary
assignment methodology will continue to be held accountable for their
prospectively assigned population for the performance year, regardless
of whether the beneficiaries remain in the same geographic area, as
long as they continue to reside in the United States, do not enroll in
Medicare Advantage, and have at least one month of Parts A and B
coverage and no months of Part A only or Part B only coverage. Thus,
for an ACO that is subject to the prospective assignment methodology,
the impact of a disaster on the size of its beneficiary population for
the performance year should be small. However, we appreciate the fact
that extreme and uncontrollable events could lead to out-migration from
the affected area, which could, in turn, have negative effects on an
ACO's prospectively assigned beneficiary population for future periods
or on the current performance year (or future benchmark year)
assignment for an ACO that is subject to preliminary prospective
assignment with retrospective reconciliation.
Under section 1899(b)(2)(D) of the Act, in order to be eligible to
participate
[[Page 68043]]
in the Shared Savings Program an ACO must have at least 5,000
beneficiaries. CMS deems an ACO to have initially satisfied the
requirement to have at least 5,000 assigned beneficiaries if 5,000 or
more beneficiaries are historically assigned to the ACO participants in
each of the 3 benchmark years as calculated using the program's
assignment methodology (Sec. 425.110(a)). We decline to modify our
policy for determining whether a renewing ACO has satisfied the
statutory requirement to make a special exception for ACOs that have
been affected by an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance as we
cannot be certain whether a below-threshold population during the
benchmark years is due to out-migration resulting from the disaster or
to other factors. Furthermore, there would be no assurance that an
ACO's assigned beneficiary population would sufficiently increase
during the performance period to comply with the statutory requirement.
We note that as part of their application to renew their participation
in the program for a new agreement period, all ACOs can modify their
ACO participant list to try to expand their assigned beneficiary
population to meet the threshold. ACOs that are unable to meet the
5,000 assigned beneficiary threshold would have the opportunity to re-
enter the program after the size of their patient population has
recovered.
Furthermore, we want to note that ACOs that fall below the 5,000
assigned beneficiary threshold during an agreement period are not
automatically terminated from the program. As specified in Sec.
425.110(b), if at any time during the performance year an ACO's
assigned population falls below 5,000, the ACO may be subject to the
predetermination actions described in Sec. 425.216 and termination of
the participation agreement by CMS under Sec. 425.218. Because ACOs
have the opportunity to modify their ACO participant lists prior to the
start of each performance year, such ACOs may have time to sufficiently
rebuild their assigned population before they must be terminated from
the program, and in time for renewal. We also note that under the
policies being finalized in section II.A.5.c. of this final rule, ACOs
that are involuntarily terminated from the program under Sec. 425.218
or that voluntarily terminate under Sec. 425.220 may apply to re-enter
without the previously required ``sit-out'' period.
Following consideration of the comments received in response to the
December 2017 interim final rule with comment period, we are not making
any changes to the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies
that were adopted for performance year 2017. In the November 2018 final
rule, we finalized policies for providing relief for ACOs impacted by
extreme and uncontrollable circumstances in performance year 2018 and
subsequent years. In that final rule, we amended the provisions at
Sec. Sec. 425.502(e)(4) and (f); 425.606(i) and 425.610(i) that were
originally adopted in the December 2017 interim final rule with comment
period in order to reflect these revised policies.
IV. Collection of Information Requirements
As stated in section 3022 of the Affordable Care Act, Chapter 35 of
title 44, United States Code, shall not apply to the Shared Savings
Program. Consequently, the information collection requirements
contained in this final rule need not be reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Statement of Need
This final rule is necessary in order to make certain payment and
policy changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program established under
section 1899 of the Social Security Act. The Shared Savings Program
promotes accountability for a patient population, fosters the
coordination of items and services under Parts A and B, and encourages
investment in infrastructure and redesigned care processes for high
quality and efficient service delivery.
The need for the policies is summarized in the statement of the
rule's purpose in section I. of this final rule and described in
greater detail throughout the discussion of the policies in section II.
of this final rule. As we have previously explained in this final rule,
ACOs in two-sided models have shown significant savings to the Medicare
program and are advancing quality. However, the majority of ACOs remain
under a one-sided model. Some of these ACOs are increasing Medicare
spending (and therefore generating losses) while benefiting from
waivers of certain federal requirements in connection with their
participation in the program. These ACOs may also be encouraging
consolidation in the market place and reducing competition and choice
for Medicare FFS beneficiaries. Under the redesign of the Shared
Savings Program we are adopting in this final rule, ACOs of different
compositions, and levels of experience with the accountable care model
may continue to participate in the program, but the provisions included
in this final rule will put the program on a path towards achieving a
more measureable move to value and lead to savings for the Medicare
program, while promoting a competitive and accountable marketplace.
In summary, this final rule will redesign the participation
options, including the payment models, available to Shared Savings
Program ACOs to encourage their transition to performance-based risk.
As part of this approach, CMS will extend the length of ACOs' agreement
periods from 3 to 5 years as well as make changes to the program's
benchmarking methodology to allow for benchmarks that better reflect
the ACO's regional service area expenditures beginning with its first
agreement period, while also mitigating the effects of factors based on
regional FFS expenditures on ACO benchmarks more generally. These
policies are necessary to improve the value proposition of the program
for currently participating ACOs considering continuing their
participation, as well as for organizations considering entering the
program. Further, these changes are timely as large cohorts of the
program's early entrants, the vast majority of which are currently
participating in the program's one-sided model (Track 1), face a
required transition to performance-based risk at the start of their
next agreement period.
Other key changes to the program's regulations are also necessary,
including to implement new requirements established by the Bipartisan
Budget Act, which generally allow for additional flexibilities in
payment and program policies for ACOs and their participating providers
and suppliers. Specifically, we are finalizing policies to implement
provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act that allow certain ACOs to
establish CMS-approved beneficiary incentive programs to provide
incentive payments to assigned beneficiaries who receive qualifying
primary care services; permit payment for expanded use of telehealth
services furnished by physicians or other practitioners participating
in an applicable ACO that is subject to a prospective assignment
methodology; and provide greater flexibility in the assignment of
Medicare FFS beneficiaries to ACOs by allowing ACOs in tracks under a
retrospective beneficiary assignment methodology a choice of
prospective assignment for the agreement period. Additionally, this
final rule will extend the availability of the program's existing SNF
3-day rule waiver to all ACOs participating under performance-based
risk to support these ACOs in coordinating care across
[[Page 68044]]
settings to meet the needs of their patient populations.
To provide ACOs time to consider the new participation options and
prepare for program changes, make investments and other business
decisions about participation, obtain buy-in from their governing
bodies and executives, and complete and submit a Shared Savings Program
application for a performance year beginning in 2019, we elected to
forgo the application cycle in 2018 for an agreement start date of
January 1, 2019, and instead in the November 2018 final rule (83 FR
59946) we finalized a voluntary 6-month extension for ACOs with a
participation agreement ending on December 31, 2018, to allow these
ACOs an opportunity to extend their current agreement period for an
additional 6-month performance year. Under the policies we are adopting
in this final rule, these ACOs will be able to apply for a new
agreement period under the BASIC track or ENHANCED track beginning on
July 1, 2019. ACOs entering a new agreement period on July 1, 2019,
will have the opportunity to participate in the program under an
agreement period spanning 5 years and 6 months, where the first
performance year is the 6-month period between July 1, 2019, and
December 31, 2019. This final rule includes the methodology for
determining ACO financial performance for the 6-month performance year
from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
B. Overall Impact
We examined the impacts of this final rule as required by Executive
Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993),
Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
(January 18, 2011), Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017), the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section
1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive
Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or
adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities (also
referred to as ``economically significant''); (2) creating a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned
by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Executive Order 13771
directs agencies to categorize all impacts which generate or alleviate
costs associated with regulatory burden and to determine the action's
net incremental effect.
1. Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable Care
Organizations--Pathways to Success (CMS-1701-F2)
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules
with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1
year). We estimate that this rulemaking is ``economically significant''
as measured by the $100 million threshold, and hence also a major rule
under the Congressional Review Act. Accordingly, we have prepared a
RIA, which to the best of our ability presents the costs and benefits
of the rulemaking.
In keeping with our standard practice, the main analysis presented
in this RIA compares the expected outcomes under the policies included
in this final rule to the expected outcomes under current regulations.
We provide our analysis of the expected costs of the final payment
model under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act to the costs that would be
incurred under the statutory payment model under section 1899(d) of the
Act in section V.E. of this final rule.
2. Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable Care
Organizations--Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstances Policies (CMS-
1701-F)
We noted in the December 2017 IFC (82 FR 60918) that the policies
for addressing extreme and uncontrollable circumstances are unlikely to
have a significant economic impact on the Shared Savings Program. For
purposes of the December 2018 interim final rule with comment, we
estimated the impact of these policies by simulating their effect on
actual 2016 financial and quality performance results, the most recent
available reconciled financial and quality results, for the ACOs
participating in the program in performance year 2017 that were
potentially impacted by these policies. The total increase in shared
savings payments and total reduction in shared loss payments
anticipated for ACOs impacted by the policies in this rule in 2017 was
estimated to be approximately $3.5 million. Performance year 2017
results were available in August of 2018, and we found that all 11 of
the performance-based risk ACOs that owed shared losses received an
adjustment, reducing aggregate shared losses by $640,000 to reflect the
impact of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. In addition, 31
ACOs received the mean ACO quality score of 92 percent as a result of
having at least 20 percent of their assigned beneficiaries or the ACO's
legal entity in a county designated as a natural disaster emergency
area.
C. Anticipated Effects
1. Effects on the Medicare Program
a. Background
The Shared Savings Program is a voluntary program operating since
2012 that provides financial incentives for demonstrating quality of
care and efficiency gains within FFS Medicare. In developing the
policies finalized in this rule, we evaluated the impact of the quality
and financial results of the first 4 performance years of the program.
We also considered our earlier projections of the program's impacts as
described in the November 2011 final rule (see Table 8, 76 FR 67963),
the June 2015 final rule (80 FR 32819), and June 2016 final rule (81 FR
38002).
(1) ACO Performance 2012 Through 2016
We have analyzed financial performance from the first four
performance years for the Shared Savings Program.\24\ Table 14
describes performance year 2016 results for ACOs segmented by track.
These results show that in performance year 2016, the 410 Track 1 ACOs
spent more on average
[[Page 68045]]
relative to their financial benchmarks, resulting in a net loss of $49
million, or $7 per beneficiary. Because these ACOs were in a one-sided
shared savings only model, CMS did not recoup any portion of these
losses. Further, in performance year 2016, the 6 Track 2 and 16 Track 3
ACOs spent less on average relative to their financial benchmarks.
Track 2 ACOs produced net savings of $18 million or $308 per
beneficiary, and Track 3 ACOs produced net savings of $14 million or
$39 per beneficiary. These results (albeit from a relatively small
sample of ACOs that in a number of cases moved to a performance-based
risk track only after showing strong performance in a first agreement
period under Track 1) indicate that ACOs under performance-based risk
were more successful at lowering expenditures in performance year 2016
than ACOs under Track 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The first performance year for the program concluded
December 31, 2013, which included a 21-period for April 2012
starters, an 18-month period for July 2012 starters, and a 12-month
period for January 2013 starters. Thereafter, results have been
determined for the calendar year performance year for 2014 through
2017 for all ACOs that participated in the program for the relevant
year. The study conducted for this rule reviewed results through
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same performance year 2016 data also show that ACOs produce a
higher level of net savings and more optimal financial performance
results the longer they have been in the Shared Savings Program and
with additional participation experience. In performance year 2016, 42
percent of ACOs that started participating in the Shared Savings
Program in 2012 and remained in the program in 2016 shared in savings
and 36 percent of both 2013 and 2014 starters shared in savings. In
contrast, 26 percent of 2015 starters shared in savings and 18 percent
of 2016 starters shared in savings in performance year 2016.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.018
Table 15 indicates that when analyzing the performance of ACOs in
Track 1, which is the track in which the majority of Shared Savings
Program ACOs participated as of performance year 2016, it becomes clear
that low revenue ACOs are saving CMS money while high revenue ACOs are
resulting in additional spending by CMS before accounting for market-
wide and potential spillover effects. Low revenue Track 1 ACOs produced
net savings of $182 million relative to their benchmarks or $73 per
beneficiary, and high revenue Track 1 ACOs produced a net loss of $231
million or $46 per beneficiary. For the purpose of this analysis, an
ACO whose ACO participants' Medicare FFS revenue for assigned
beneficiaries was less than 10 percent of the ACO's assigned
beneficiary population's Parts A and B expenditures, was identified as
a ``low revenue ACO,'' while an ACO whose ACO participants' Medicare
FFS revenue for assigned beneficiaries was at least 10 percent of the
ACO's assigned beneficiary population's Parts A and B expenditures, was
identified as a ``high revenue ACO''. Nationally, evaluation and
management spending accounts for about 10 percent of total Parts A and
B per capita spending. Because ACO assignment focuses on evaluation and
management spending, applying a 10 percent limit to identify low
revenue ACOs will capture all ACOs that participated in the Shared
Savings Program in performance year 2016 that were solely comprised of
providers and suppliers billing for physician fee schedule services and
generally exclude ACOs with providers and suppliers that bill for
inpatient services for their assigned beneficiaries. The use of a
threshold of 10 percent of the Parts A and B expenditures for the ACO's
assigned beneficiary population to classify ACOs as either ``low
revenue'' or ``high revenue'' also showed the most significant
difference in performance between the two types of ACOs. We note that
this approach differs from the definitions for low revenue ACO and high
revenue ACO discussed in section II.A.5.b. and finalized in this final
rule. However, our analysis has confirmed that the simpler and more
practical policy that we are adopting in this final rule of identifying
low revenue ACOs using a 35-percent threshold in terms of the ratio of
ACO participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue relative to
total Medicare Parts A and B expenditures for the ACO's assigned
beneficiary population produces a comparable subgroup of ACOs with
similarly-elevated average financial performance and ACO participant
composition as the methods used in this study, as well as the lower 25
percent threshold proposed in the August 2018 proposed rule.
[[Page 68046]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.019
With respect to ACO quality, the Shared Savings Program's quality
measure set includes both process and outcome measures that evaluate
preventive care, clinical care for at-risk populations, patient
experience of care, and care coordination. ACOs have consistently
achieved higher average performance rates compared to group practices
reporting similar quality measures. In addition, ACOs that have
participated in the program over a longer time period have shown
greater improvement in quality performance. For example, across all
Shared Savings Program ACOs that reported quality in both performance
year 2013 and performance year 2016, average quality performance
improved by 15 percent across 25 measures used consistently across the
performance years. Further, for performance year 2016, 93 percent of
Shared Savings Program ACOs received bonus points for improving quality
performance in at least one of the four quality measure domains with an
average quality score increase for the applicable domain of 3
percentage points.
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for Track 1 of the
Shared Savings Program and the value of one-sided models. Several
commenters cited the positive performance of Track 1 ACOs during
performance year 2017 and past performance years referencing publically
available CMS data and other publically available studies and citing
the wide range of potential savings generated by Track 1 ACOs. Several
commenters expressed their belief that Shared Savings Program
performance should not be measured against ACO benchmarks, as financial
benchmarks do not serve as valid counterfactuals and also fail to
account for spillover effects, leading to misinterpretations of the
value of one-sided models.
A few commenters stated that they believed there is limited
evidence available that shows downside risk elicits stronger
performance, and one commenter suggested CMS should revise its
statements that suggest ACOs participating in Track 1 of the Shared
Savings Program have increased spending. A few commenters indicated
that as ACOs gain experience with participation in the Shared Savings
Program, these experienced ACOs also have demonstrated greater rates of
savings, suggesting that ACOs should continue to have additional time
to participate in one-sided models and the opportunity for slower
transitions to performance-based risk.
Response: We agree with commenters' suggestions that there is value
in one-sided models, and we want to reiterate this belief for those
commenters who suggested we have not recognized the benefits of
participation in a one-sided model. As discussed in detail in this
Regulatory Impact Analysis, the program results indicate that ACOs in
one-sided models have indeed contributed to significant overall net
program savings. We also agree with commenters, that performance in
one-sided models should be evaluated using a variety of performance
measures, such as comparing ACO markets to non-ACO markets. This type
of comparison has shown spending trend reductions supporting the
benefits of ACO participation in one-sided models, implying gross
savings are likely several times the magnitude measured by program
benchmarks. We also agree that ACOs need an opportunity to participate
in a one-sided model to gain experience in the Shared Savings Program
before moving to performance-based risk, and we believe the glide path
provided in the BASIC Track offers the flexibility needed for ACOs to
gain experience in the program, while also offering options for ACOs
that are ready to accelerate their move to higher risk within an
agreement period.
We disagree with commenters that suggested that ACOs should have
more time and a slower transition to two-sided models, as we have found
ACOs in two-sided models consistently have generated greater savings
and have shown higher performance than ACOs in one-sided models, and we
believe the glide path provided in the BASIC track strikes the
appropriate balance in incentives to improve performance and
appropriately transitions ACOs to greater levels of risk and reward.
Comment: Several commenters agreed with the discussion in the
August 2018 proposed rule regarding the data that show physician-led
ACOs are more successful in producing savings. Some other commenters
disagreed with CMS' conclusion that low revenue ACOs (typically
physician-led ACOs) perform better than high revenue ACOs (typically
ACOs that include a hospital). MedPAC commented that although the
August 2018 proposed rule described greater savings relative to
benchmarks for low revenue ACOs in 2016, this analysis may not present
the full picture because it did not take into account the fact that
physician-only ACOs are more common in markets where service use per
beneficiary has been historically high. According to MedPAC, even if
physician-only ACOs generate some small degree of additional savings on
average compared to hospital-based ACOs, the magnitude of these
additional savings is not large enough for the Medicare program to
favor physician-only ACOs over integrated physician-hospital ACOs for
payment purposes. Rather, Medicare should be neutral with respect to
the specific configuration of ACOs and their ACO participants and ACO
providers/suppliers, and instead design and implement policies to
reward the most effective ACOs in a given market.
A few commenters argued that one of CMS' premises for
distinguishing between hospital-based and physician-led ACOs is flawed,
explaining based on a commenter's own analysis, that at least 20
percent of health system-led ACOs would be designated as
[[Page 68047]]
``physician led,'' and more generally that some of the highest
performing individual ACOs are hospital-based ACOs.
Response: We believe that factors related to ACO composition,
including the relationship between ACO participant revenues and the
ACO's benchmark, are reflected in program participation trends and
program results, including results from performance years 2016 and
2017. Financial results vary at the ACO level and there are both
significant savings and losses represented in the subsets of low and
high revenue ACOs, but the finding that low revenue ACOs have higher
mean savings is generally consistent even when filtering for specific
cohorts of ACOs, specific years of performance, and track selection.
Furthermore, the changes we are finalizing in this rule will not
preclude high revenue ACOs from succeeding in the program, but instead
they will require such ACOs to take a more aggressive path toward
performance-based risk--a path that is naturally better suited to
entities with higher revenue, as evidenced by the successful
participation of high revenue ACOs in Track 2 and Track 3. While early
adopters of performance-based risk have included both low revenue ACOs
and high revenue ACOs, a larger percentage of high revenue ACOs have
elected to participate in two-sided models. For example, in performance
year 2017, there were 6 percent more high revenue ACOs participating in
Track 2 and Track 3 than in Track 1. However, analyses of performance
year 2017 results show that low revenue ACOs continue to have stronger
performance overall than high revenue ACOs, and low revenue ACOs in
two-sided risk models outperform all other ACOs. While high revenue
ACOs with greater experience in the program participating under two-
sided models outperformed ACOs with these characteristics in Track 1,
high revenue ACOs in two-sided models in their first performance year
in the program showed a net loss. Generally, the vast majority of ACOs
in two-sided models that have owed shared losses have been high revenue
ACOs.
We believe this experience and the program results to date
demonstrate that high revenue ACOs generally have a greater capacity to
take on higher risk and that higher levels of risk can help serve as
catalyst for these organizations to improve quality of care and lower
growth in FFS expenditures for their assigned beneficiary populations
even more quickly. Further, high revenue ACOs that have not already
moved to two-sided risk are not performing as well as low revenue ACOs,
although we believe they have the financial means to move to greater
risk, and may be taking advantage of program flexibilities that can
lead to increased program spending or are not serious about redesigning
their care processes to improve quality and lower expenditure growth.
As a consequence, we believe high revenue ACOs without a sufficient
incentive to change their practice patterns, including through the
transition to performance-based risk, may not only lead to higher
Medicare spending, but also pose a risk of crowding out participation
by low revenue ACOs with stronger potential to improve the quality and
efficiency of care delivery.
(2) ACO Market-Wide Effects and Potential Spillover
Analysis of wider program claims data indicates Medicare ACOs have
considerable market-wide impact, including significant spillover
effects not directly measurable by ACO benchmarks. Whereas spending
relative to benchmark (Tables 14 and 15) indicates Shared Savings
Program ACOs as a group are not producing net savings for the Medicare
FFS program, a study of wider claims data indicates significant net
savings are likely being produced. Table 16 includes data through
performance year 2016 on the cumulative per capita Medicare FFS
expenditure trend (on a price-standardized and risk-adjusted basis) in
markets that include Medicare ACOs, including ACOs participating in the
Shared Savings Program as well as in the Pioneer and Next Generation
ACO Models. Table 16 illustrates that, compared to the results in
relation to ACOs' historical benchmarks discussed previously (see Table
14), more savings are likely being generated when both the spillover
effects on related populations and the feedback effect of growing ACO
participation on the national average FFS program spending growth,
which in turn has been used to update ACO benchmarks, are factored in.
Table 16 expresses combined market average per capita spending growth
since 2011 relative to a baseline FFS per capita trend observed for
hospital referral regions continuing to have less than 10 percent of
total assignable FFS beneficiaries assigned to Medicare ACOs through
2016. Markets that have been ``ACO active'' longer (defined by the year
a market first reached at least 10 percent assignment of assignable FFS
beneficiaries to Medicare ACOs) show the greatest relative reduction in
average adjusted growth in per capita Medicare FFS spending. Markets
that have included Medicare ACOs since 2012, particularly the
relatively small subset of 10 hospital referral regions reaching
significant ACO participation in risk (defined as at least 30 percent
assignment by 2016 to ACOs participating in a Shared Savings Program
track or Medicare ACO model with performance-based risk), show the most
significant reductions in Medicare FFS spending through 2016.
[[Page 68048]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.020
Based on an analysis of Medicare Shared Savings Program and Pioneer
ACO Model performance data, we observe that the sharpest declines in
spending are for post-acute facility services (particularly skilled
nursing facility services), with smaller rates of savings (but more
dollars saved overall) from prevented hospital admissions and reduced
spending for outpatient hospital episodes. These findings become
apparent when assessing hospital referral regions both with (>10
percent of assignable Medicare FFS beneficiaries assigned to ACOs in
2012) and without (<10 percent through 2016) a significant portion of
assignable Medicare FFS beneficiaries assigned to ACOs. Comparing
price-standardized per capita changes in spending from 2011 to 2016,
regions with significant ACO penetration yielded larger declines in
expenditures in the following areas relative to those without
significant ACO penetration: Post-acute care facilities (relative
decrease of 9.0 percent), inpatient (1.6 percent relative decrease),
and outpatient (3.5 percent relative decrease). These relative
decreases were accompanied by declines in evaluation and management
services (2.5 percent relative decrease), emergency department (ED)
utilization (1.6 percent relative decrease), hospital admissions (1.9
percent decrease), and hospital readmissions (3.5 percent decrease).
There also appears to be substitution of higher cost services with
lower cost services. For example, during the same period, home health
expenditures increased by 5.0 percent and ambulatory surgery center
expenditures increased by 1.4 percent, indicating that some
beneficiaries could be forgoing care in institutional and inpatient
settings in favor of lower cost sites of care.
These findings are supported by outside literature and research.
For example, a study conducted by J. Michael McWilliams and colleagues
(JAMA, 2017) found that Shared Savings Program ACOs that began
participating in 2012 reduced post-acute care spending by 9 percent by
2014.\25\ Another study by Ulrika Winblad and colleagues (Health
Affairs, 2017) determined that ACO-affiliated hospitals reduced
readmissions from skilled nursing facilities at a faster rate than non-
ACO-affiliated hospitals through 2013.\26\ In addition, a study by John
Hsu and colleagues (Health Affairs, 2017) concluded that using care
management programs, large Pioneer ACOs generated 6 percent fewer ED
visits, 8 percent fewer hospitalizations, and overall 6 percent less
Medicare spending relative to a comparison group through 2014.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ McWilliams JM, et al. Changes in Postacute Care in the
Medicare Shared Savings Program. JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177(4):518-
526. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.9115.
\26\ Winblad U, et al. ACO-Affiliated Hospitals Reduced
Rehospitalizations from Skilled Nursing Facilities Faster than Other
Hospitals. Health Affairs. 2017 January; 36(1): 67-73. doi:10.1377/
hlthaff.2016.0759.
\27\ Hsu J, et al. Bending The Spending Curve By Altering Care
Delivery Patterns: The Role Of Care Management Within A Pioneer ACO.
Health Affairs. 2017 May 1; 36(5):876-884. doi:10.1377/
hlthaff.2016.0922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming Medicare ACOs were responsible for all relative deviations
in trend from non-ACO markets produces an optimistic estimate that
total combined Medicare ACO efforts potentially reduced total FFS
Medicare Parts A and B spending in 2016 by about 1.2 percent, or $4.2
billion (after accounting for shared savings payments but before
accounting for the potential impact on MA plan payment). However, it is
likely that ACOs are not the only factor responsible for lower spending
growth found in early-ACO-active markets. Health care providers in such
markets are likely to be more receptive to other models and/or
interventions, potentially including the following, for example: (1)
Health Care Innovation Award payment and service delivery models funded
by the Innovation Center; (2) advanced primary care functionality
promoted by other payers, independent organizations like the National
Committee for Quality Assurance, and/or through Innovation Center
initiatives including the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice
Demonstration and Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative; and (3) care
coordination funded through other Medicare initiatives, including, for
example, the Community-based Care Transitions Program. Furthermore, the
markets making up the non-ACO comparison group only cover about 10
percent of the national assignable FFS population in 2016 and may offer
an imperfect counterfactual from which to estimate ACO effects on other
markets.
An alternative (and likely more precise) estimate for the overall
Medicare ACO effect on spending through 2016 involves assuming a
spillover multiplier mainly for savings on non-assigned beneficiaries
whose spending is not explicitly included in benchmark calculations and
combining primary and spillover effects to estimate the degree to which
ACO benchmarks were reduced by the feedback such efficiency gains would
have had on
[[Page 68049]]
national average spending growth. Analysis of claims data indicates an
average ACO's providers and suppliers provide services to roughly 40 to
50 percent more beneficiaries than are technically assigned to the ACO
in a given year. In addition, savings will potentially extend to
spending greater than the large claims truncation amount, IME payments,
DSH payments, and other pass-through payments that are excluded from
ACO financial calculations. Assuming proportional savings accrue for
non-assigned beneficiaries and the excluded spending categories, as
previously described, supports a spillover savings assumption of 1.6
(that is, 60 cents of savings on non-benchmark spending for every
dollar of savings on benchmark spending). Total implied savings,
including the assumed spillover savings, suggest that Medicare ACOs
were responsible for about 50 percent of the lower spending growth in
ACO markets (after becoming ACO active), or roughly 0.5 percent lower
total FFS Parts A and B spending in 2016 after accounting for shared
savings payments.
The latest results recently published for ACOs participating in a
2017 performance year show continued overall progress in terms of the
magnitude of combined program savings relative to combined benchmarks
and relative to the net combined dollars returned to ACOs as shared
savings payments net of shared loss receipts. For the first time in
2017, ACOs in Track 1 showed combined savings relative to benchmark
exceeding the combined dollars returned to such ACOs via shared savings
payments. However, the greatest difference in terms of gross savings
relative to benchmark outpacing shared savings payments continues to be
exhibited by the subgroup of low-revenue ACOs in performance based
risk.
There are several other key takeaways from the available evidence
and literature regarding the performance of Medicare ACOs, including
the following:
Independent Research Finds ACOs Reduce Medicare Trust Fund Outlays.
The implications from studying market-level trends described in the
previous section are compatible with findings reported by independent
researchers. J. Michael McWilliams (JAMA, 2016) found that in 2014,
Shared Savings Program ACOs generated estimated program savings of $628
million, or about 2.5 times higher than the savings in relation to
participating ACOs' historical benchmarks and nearly twice the total
shared savings payments of $341 million.\28\ Another study by
McWilliams and colleagues (JAMA, 2013) on a commercial ACO initiative,
the Alternative Quality Contract, estimated a net 3.4 percent reduction
in spending on Medicare beneficiaries due to spillover from a
commercial non-Medicare ACO initiative.\29\ A study funded by the
National Association of Accountable Care Organizations estimated that
Shared Savings Program ACOs generated savings of $1.84 billion during
through the 2015 performance year, or roughly double the gross savings
measured relative to the ACOs' combined benchmark over such period.\30\
This research supports the hypothesis that changes in care delivery
implemented by Medicare ACO clinicians will, in turn, cause efficiency
gains in the wider Medicare FFS population. In another study supporting
this hypothesis, Madeleine Phipps-Taylor and Stephen Shortell (NEJM,
2016) conducted a set of case studies which concluded that ACOs were
making system and process changes that will improve the value of
services provided to all patients, regardless of payer.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ McWilliams JM. Changes in Medicare Shared Savings Program
Savings From 2013 to 2014. JAMA. 2016; 316(16):1711-1713.
doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12049.
\29\ McWilliams JM, et al. Changes in Health Care Spending and
Quality for Medicare Beneficiaries Associated With a Commercial ACO
Contract. JAMA. 2013; 310(8):829-836. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.276302.
\30\ Dobson, A, et al. Estimates of Savings by Medicare Shared
Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations. (August 30, 2018);
available at https://www.naacos.com/assets/docs/pdf/Study_of_MSSP_Savings_2012-2015.pdf
\31\ Madeleine Phipps-Taylor & Stephen M. Shortell. ACO
Spillover Effects: An Opportunity Not to Be Missed, NEJM Catalyst
(September 21, 2016); available at https://catalyst.nejm.org/aco-spillover-effects-opportunity-not-missed/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low revenue ACOs (including small and physician-only ACOs) have
produced stronger average benchmark savings to date than high revenue
ACOs (likely including institutional providers). We also find lower
spending growth in the handful of markets that happen to be virtually
exclusively populated by low revenue ACOs; however, the sample size of
such markets is too small for us to confidently estimate relative
performance but does offer some corroboration of the stronger results
observed for low revenue ACOs on average relative to their historical
benchmarks. Further, evidence suggests that overall payment reform has
been associated with little acceleration in consolidation of health
care providers that surpasses trends already underway (Post et al.,
2017),\32\ although there is some evidence of potential defensive
consolidation in response to new payment models (Neprash et al.,
2017).\33\ Anecdotally, ACOs provide physician practices with a way to
stay independent and offer a viable alternative to merging with a
hospital (Mostashari, 2016).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See for example, Brady Post, Tom Buchmueller, and Andrew M.
Ryan. Vertical Integration of Hospitals and Physicians: Economic
Theory and Empirical Evidence on Spending and Quality. Medical Care
Research and Review. August 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558717727834. See also, Liaw WR, et al. Solo and Small
Practices: A Vital, Diverse Part of Primary Care. Ann Fam Med.
2016;14(1):8-15. doi:10.1370/afm.1839.
\33\ Neprash HT, Chernew ME & McWilliams JM. Little Evidence
Exists to Support the Expectation That Providers Will Consolidate to
Enter New Payment Models. Health Affairs. 2017; 36(2): 346-354.
doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0840.
\34\ See for example, Mostashari, F. The Paradox of Size: How
Small, Independent Practices Can Thrive in Value-Based Care. Ann Fam
Med. 2016; 14(1):5-7. doi:10.1370/afm.1899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generating savings is difficult for ACOs. It may take time as well
as trial and error for ACOs to build more efficient care delivery
infrastructure. Small absolute savings compound over time in an
incremental fashion. This gradual change is evidenced by ACOs'
financial performance results to date, which indicate that ACOs produce
more net savings the longer they participate in programs such as the
Shared Savings Program.
Shared savings are not profits. Program experience since 2012
indicates that ACOs make upfront investments in care delivery
infrastructure, including data analytics and staffing, with the intent
of saving money through improvements in care management and
coordination. ACOs that do not achieve savings must still fund these
operational costs.
Sustainably rewarding attained efficiency and continued improvement
is the central challenge. Therefore, optimizing program design elements
for ACO initiatives such as the Shared Savings Program is key to
ensuring that both of these goals are attained. Such elements include
the methodology used to set and reset the ACO's historical benchmark,
the approach used to calculate the ACO's shared savings and/or shared
losses, the level of performance-based risk for ACOs, and the
methodology for assigning beneficiaries to the ACOs. Striking this
balance correctly will foster increased participation in ACO
initiatives, which is required to produce higher levels of net savings.
Comment: Several commenters suggested CMS incorporate a broader set
of measurement approaches to
[[Page 68050]]
determine ACO and Shared Savings Program performance, to better
identify spillover and other effects on non-ACO assigned populations. A
few commenters believed that improved accuracy in identifying and
measuring spillover effects would improve determinations of the overall
performance of the Shared Savings Program and better identify actual
savings to the Medicare Trust Funds.
Response: We agree with commenters that reviewing the wider impacts
and accounting for the spillover effects related to ACO participation
in the Shared Savings Program is important, and this was discussed in
detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the August 2018 proposed
rule. Our analysis of wider program claims data indicates that Medicare
ACOs have considerable market-wide impact, including significant
spillover effects not directly measurable by ACO benchmarks. Table 16
includes data through PY 2016 on the cumulative per capita Medicare FFS
expenditure trend (on a price-standardized and risk-adjusted basis) in
markets that include Medicare ACOs, including ACOs participating in the
Shared Savings Program as well as in the Pioneer and Next Generation
ACO Models. Table 16 illustrates that more savings are likely being
generated when both the spillover effects on related populations and
the feedback effect of growing ACO participation on the national
average FFS program spending growth are factored in. Additionally,
analysis of markets that have been ``ACO active'' longer (defined by
the year a market first reached at least 10 percent assignment of
assignable FFS beneficiaries to Medicare ACOs) shows that these markets
have the greatest relative reduction in average adjusted growth in per
capita Medicare FFS spending. CMS will continue to use a variety of
methods to evaluate the impact of Shared Savings Program participation
in future years.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that CMS' statements that
ACOs are a potential driver of consolidation in the healthcare industry
are not supported by studies or publically available data. One
commenter described their belief that consolidation had been occurring
before the Shared Savings Program and has generally continued for other
reasons, and that the Shared Savings Program may even contribute to
greater competition in provider markets, as long as its incentive
structure continues to favor lower-revenue organizations. One commenter
suggests ACOs provide physician practices with a way to stay
independent and offer an alternative to merging with a hospital. One
commenter described the program redesign outlined in the August 2018
proposed rule as more complex and expensive than the existing program
requirements, and was concerned that it would potentially limit
opportunities for smaller companies, such that larger entities will
prevail.
Response: As explained earlier in this impact analysis, evidence
suggests that overall payment reform has been associated with little
acceleration in consolidation of health care providers that surpasses
trends already underway (Post et al., 2017) \35\, but there is some
evidence of potential defensive consolidation in response to new
payment models (Neprash et al., 2017) \36\. Anecdotally, ACOs provide
physician practices with a way to remain independent and offer a viable
alternative to merging with a hospital (Mostashari, 2016).\37\ However,
we also agree with commenters that additional investigation and
research on consolidation is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See for example, Brady Post, Tom Buchmueller, and Andrew M.
Ryan. Vertical Integration of Hospitals and Physicians: Economic
Theory and Empirical Evidence on Spending and Quality. Medical Care
Research and Review. August 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558717727834. See also, Liaw WR, et al. Solo and Small
Practices: A Vital, Diverse Part of Primary Care. Ann Fam Med.
2016;14(1):8-15. doi:10.1370/afm.1839.
\36\ Neprash HT, Chernew ME & McWilliams JM. Little Evidence
Exists to Support the Expectation That Providers Will Consolidate to
Enter New Payment Models. Health Affairs. 2017; 36(2): 346-354.
doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0840.
\37\ See for example, Mostashari, F. The Paradox of Size: How
Small, Independent Practices Can Thrive in Value-Based Care. Ann Fam
Med. 2016; 14(1):5-7. doi:10.1370/afm.1899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that the program
redesign under the ``Pathways to Success'' will encourage larger
entities to form, as our incentives for low revenue ACOs will likely
continue to support smaller physician-driven organizations to
participate in the Shared Savings Program and reduce incentives for
consolidation. Rather, we believe that the redesign of the Shared
Savings Program offers ACOs of different compositions opportunities to
move to value and achieve savings for the Medicare program, while
promoting a competitive and accountable marketplace.
Comment: Two commenters disputed CMS' assertion that Shared Savings
Program ACOs are not generating significant savings due to ACOs'
reluctance to undertake risk. These commenters believe that Shared
Savings Program ACOs are improving quality and achieving significantly
higher savings for Medicare than CMS originally calculated. One
commenter requested that CMS re-examine its data and re-evaluate the
effectiveness of the Shared Savings Program. Other commenters expressed
disappointment with ACO progress toward significantly improving
efficiency of care
Response: We disagree with the assertions made by these commenters
that we have underestimated the overall impact of the program. As
discussed in detail in this Regulatory Impact Analysis, our analysis of
the program indicates that ACOs (the majority of which participated in
one-sided Track 1 during our study period) have produced significant
overall net program savings as evidenced by reductions in spending
trends in ACO markets compared to non-ACO markets, which imply that
gross savings from ACO participation in the program are likely at least
several times the magnitude measured by program benchmarks. We also
note, however, that high revenue ACOs on average are not showing
positive net savings relative to their benchmarks. We believe replacing
Track 1 with a BASIC track featuring a more gradual, but ultimately
quicker, transition to performance-based risk, in conjunction with
benchmark refinements, will promote stronger performance by both high
revenue and low revenue ACOs remaining in or joining the program.
b. Assumptions and Uncertainties
The changes to the Shared Savings Program finalized in this rule
could result in a range of possible outcomes. In assessing the impact
of these changes, we considered a number of uncertainties related to
determining future participation and performance by ACOs in the Shared
Savings Program.
Changes to the existing benchmark calculations described previously
will benefit program cost savings by producing benchmarks with improved
accuracy (most notably by limiting the effect of the regional benchmark
adjustment to positive or negative 5 percent of the national per capita
spending amount). However, such savings will be partly offset by
increased shared savings payments to ACOs that will benefit from the
changes to our benchmarking methodology to incorporate factors based on
regional FFS expenditures beginning with the ACO's first agreement
period, revise risk adjustment to include up to a 3 percent increase in
average HCC risk score over the course of an agreement period, and
blend national trend with regional trend when calculating ACO
benchmarks. Such trade-offs reflect our intention to strengthen the
balance between
[[Page 68051]]
rewarding ACOs for attainment of efficiency in an absolute sense in
tandem with incentivizing continual improvement relative to an ACO's
recent baseline.
More predictable relationships, that is, an ACO's knowledge of its
costs relative to the FFS expenditures in its region used to adjust its
benchmark, can allow risk-averse ACOs to successfully manage
significant exposure to performance-based risk. However, the policies
we are adopting in this final rule will limit regional adjustments so
that they still incentivize low cost ACOs to take on risk while
mitigating excessive windfall payments to ACOs that, for a variety of
reasons, may be very low cost at baseline. The finalized policies--
notably the reduction in the weight used to determine the regional
adjustment for high cost ACOs to 15 percent and 25 percent,
respectively, in the first 2 agreement periods in which the regional
adjustment is applied--also increase the possibility that higher cost
ACOs will find a reasonable business case to remain in the program and
thereby continue to lower their cost over time.
We also considered the possibility that providers and suppliers
will have differing responses to changing financial incentives offered
by the program, including for example the varying levels of savings
sharing rates and/or loss sharing limits defined for the BASIC and
ENHANCED tracks. Participation decisions are expected to continue to be
based largely on an ACO's expectation of the effect of rebasing and the
regional adjustment on its ability to show spending below an expected
future benchmark. We also considered the incentive for ACOs to
participate under the highest level of risk and reward in the BASIC
track or in the ENHANCED track in order to participate in an Advanced
APM for purposes of the Quality Payment Program. Eligible clinicians in
an ACO that is participating in an Advanced APM may become Qualifying
APM Participants for a year if they receive a sufficient percentage of
their payments for Part B covered professional services or a sufficient
percentage of Medicare patients through the ACO.
We also gave consideration to the effect on program entry and
renewal as a result of discontinuing Track 1 and Track 2, and offering
instead the BASIC track (including the glide path for eligible ACOs)
and ENHANCED track, including the option for ACOs currently under 3-
year agreements for participation in Track 1, Track 2, and Track 3 to
terminate their agreement to quickly enter a new agreement period under
the BASIC track or the ENHANCED track. For example, if 2014 starters
complete a second 3-year agreement period under Track 1 and are
eligible to enter the BASIC track's glide path under a one-sided model
in 2020, these ACOs could have 7 performance years under a one-sided
model. Modeling indicates that while such allowance could slow the
transition to risk for some ACOs that might otherwise have enough of a
business case to make an immediate transition to performance-based
risk, the longer glide path will likely result in greater overall
program participation by the end of the projection period and
marginally increase overall program savings. We also considered the
effect on participation from the final policies that will permit ACOs
to change their beneficiary assignment method selection prior to the
start of each performance year, and allow ACOs in the BASIC track's
glide path the option annually to elect to transition to a higher level
of risk and reward within the glide path.
We also considered the potential effects of the final policies to
promote participation by low revenue ACOs. By allowing new, low revenue
ACOs to enter the BASIC track with several options for progressing
under the BASIC track (for example taking 3 years with up to 40 percent
sharing in savings without performance-based risk or immediately
entering the maximum level of risk and potential reward under such
track) and to continue their participation in the BASIC track for a
subsequent agreement period (under the highest level of risk and
potential reward), the new participation options that we are adopting
in this final rule will offer low revenue ACOs a longer period under a
more acceptable degree of risk given their revenue constraints, before
transitioning to more significant risk exposure under the ENHANCED
track.
Low revenue ACOs can still choose to enter the ENHANCED track, and
take on additional downside risk in exchange for the opportunity to
share in a higher percentage of any savings. Such migration is
likeliest for low revenue ACOs expecting a favorable regional
adjustment to their rebased historical benchmark. The finalized policy
of including the regional adjustment in the methodology for determining
an ACO's benchmark for its first agreement period should help provide
such ACOs the degree of certainty necessary for earlier election of
performance-based risk, while capping the amount of the regional
adjustment at positive or negative 5 percent of national per capita
expenditures for Parts A and B services for assignable beneficiaries
will help CMS to avoid unnecessarily large windfall payments for ACOs
that have already been properly incentivized to aggressively
participate with a regional adjustment set at the level of the cap.
In addition, we considered related impacts of the changes to the
program's benchmarking methodology, as used to establish, adjust,
update and reset the ACO's benchmark. For renewing ACOs--especially
ACOs that are concerned about competition from operating in a highly
competitive ACO market or ACOs that make up a large portion of their
market--several changes are likely to help mitigate concerns about the
long term business case of the model. Most notably, the use of a
regional/national blend to determine the growth rates for the trend and
update factors should reduce the degree to which ACO savings (and/or
neighboring ACO savings) affect an ACO's own benchmark updates.
Furthermore, the final policy of using full HCC risk ratios (with any
increase capped at positive 3 percent but uncapped for decreases)
regardless of the assignment status of a beneficiary should help to
assuage concerns that risk adjustment could adversely affect an ACO
that increasingly serves a higher morbidity population in its market.
To best reflect these uncertainties, we continue to utilize a
stochastic model that incorporates assumed probability distributions
for each of the key variables that will impact participation, changes
in care delivery, and the overall financial impact of the Shared
Savings Program. The model continues to employ historical baseline
variation in trends for groups of beneficiaries assigned using the
program's claim-based assignment methodology to simulate the effect of
benchmark calculations as described in the June 2016 final rule (81 FR
38005 through 38007). We used several unique assumptions and assumption
ranges in the updated model.
To estimate the number of ACOs that will participate in the
program, we assumed that up to approximately 250 existing 2018 ACOs
will be affected by the changing policies starting with a potential
third agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, or in 2020 or 2021.
We also assumed that up to approximately 300 existing 2018 ACOs will be
affected by the changing policies starting with a potential second
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, in 2020, or 2021. In
addition, between 20 and 50 new ACOs were assumed to form annually from
2019 through 2028.
[[Page 68052]]
We assumed ACO decision making regarding participation will reflect
each ACO's updated circumstances including prior year performance as
well as expected difference in spending in relation to future
anticipated adjusted benchmark spending. Specific related assumptions
are as follows:
For one, the potential that existing ACOs will renew under the
policies in this final rule are related to expectations regarding the
effect of the changes to the regional adjustment on the ACO's rebased
benchmark. ACOs expecting adjusted historical benchmarks from 2 to 10
percent higher than actual per capita cost are assumed to select the
highest-risk option (Track 3 in the baseline or the ENHANCED track
under this final rule); such range is reduced for second or later
rebasing under the policies in the final rule to 1 to 5 percent higher
than actual per capita cost. Otherwise, ACOs expecting adjusted rebased
benchmarks from 0 to 3 percent higher than actual per capita cost are
assumed to select the Track 1+ Model (baseline) or Level E of the BASIC
track (final rule). ACOs expecting adjusted rebased historical
benchmarks from 0 to 5 percent lower than actual per capita cost are
expected not to renew unless another agreement in Track 1 is allowed
(baseline), or are assumed to have between 15 and 65 percent chance of
electing the BASIC track (final rule).
Second, all other renewal decisions are expected to follow the same
assumptions as the preceding description except for the following
cases. For the baseline scenario, a Track 1 ACO eligible for a second
Track 1 agreement period during the projection period that does not
otherwise select renewal in Track 3 or the Track 1+ Model will only
renew in Track 1 if the ACO had earned shared savings in either of the
first 2 years of the existing agreement period or if the ACO
anticipates an adjusted historical benchmark no lower than 3 percent
below actual cost. For the final rule scenario, an ACO not otherwise
choosing the ENHANCED track will only renew in the BASIC track if the
following conditions were met: (1) The ACO expects an adjusted
historical benchmark no lower than 0 to 3 percent below actual cost;
(2) the ACO did not experience a loss in the existing agreement period;
and (3) the ACO is low revenue (as high revenue ACOs will be precluded
from renewing for a second agreement period in the BASIC track).
Third, we used the following approach to make assumptions about
participation decisions for ACOs encountering a shared loss. An
adjusted shared loss (L) was calculated by netting out the total
expected incentive payments that will be made under the Quality Payment
Program to ACO providers/suppliers who are Qualifying APM Participants
during the payment year that is 2 years after the performance year for
which the ACO is accountable for shared losses. In each trial a random
variable (X) was chosen from a skewed distribution ranging from zero to
3 percent of benchmark (mode 1 percent of benchmark) for determining
participation decisions affecting years prior to 2023 (alternatively X
was sampled from the range zero to 2 percent of benchmark with mode of
0.5 percent of benchmark for participation decisions for 2023 and
subsequent years when the incentive to participate in an Advanced APM
as a Qualifying APM Participant is reduced). If L>X then the ACO is
assumed to drop out. Otherwise, if L>X/2 then the ACO is assumed to
have a 50 to 100 percent chance of leaving the program. Otherwise, the
ACO has a relatively smaller loss (LY, then the ACO is assumed to elect
immediate transition to Level E of the BASIC track for the following
performance year.
Assumptions for ACO effects on claims costs reflect a combination
of factors. First, ACO revenue is assumed to be inversely proportional
to historical savings achieved prior to implementation of the
provisions of this final rule. This is because, as noted earlier, low
revenue ACOs (that tend to have low ACO participant Medicare FFS
revenue relative to the ACO's benchmark spending) have generally shown
stronger financial performance over the first 5 years of the program
than high revenue ACOs. For existing low revenue ACOs, baseline savings
immediately prior to renewal under the policies in this final rule are
estimated to range from 1 to 4 percent of spending accounted for by the
program benchmark, with an additional spillover effect on extra-
benchmark spending accounting for an additional 25 to 75 percent
savings relative to the directly assumed savings on benchmark spending.
Conversely, existing high revenue ACOs are assumed to have baseline
savings of only 25 percent of the assumed baseline savings for low
revenue ACOs, as previously enumerated.
Residual baseline savings are then potentially assumed to gradually
diminish if participation ends. Specifically, zero to 100 percent of
baseline savings are assumed to erode by the fifth year after an
existing ACO drops out of participation as a Medicare ACO.
Alternatively, future savings for each type of ACO are assumed to
scale according to the incentive presented by each potential track of
participation. Future savings in Track 3 or the ENHANCED track during
the projection period for low revenue ACOs are assumed to range from
zero to 4 percent of benchmark spending for existing ACOs and 1 to 5
percent of benchmark spending for new ACOs. High revenue ACOs are
assumed to have zero to 100 percent of the savings assumed for low
revenue ACOs. Ultimate savings are assumed to phase in over 5 to 10
years for all types of ACOs. Savings for the Track 1+ Model or the
BASIC track, Levels with downside risk, are assumed to be 50 to 100
percent of the savings assumed for Track 3/ENHANCED track (as
previously described). Savings for the BASIC track performance years
without downside risk, or Track 1 are assumed to be 30 to 70 percent of
the savings assumed for Track 3/ENHANCED track.
We also assumed that selection effects will implicitly include the
renewal decisions of ACOs simulated in the model. Further assumptions
included the following: (1) The adoption in this final rule of full HCC
adjustment (capped at positive 3 percent) allows each ACO to increase
its benchmark according to a skewed distribution from -0.5 to 3 percent
with mode 0.5 percent (where the lower bound has been marginally
decreased to -0.5 percent from the proposed rule assumption of a 0.0
percent to account for our decision not to finalize the proposed floor
on downward HCC adjustment in this final rule); and (2) for both the
baseline and final rule scenarios, each ACO is assumed to be able to
influence its comparable
[[Page 68053]]
spending to region by zero to 5 percent (skewed with mode 1 percent)
for example via changes in ACO participant TIN composition or other
methods to direct assignment in a favorable manner given the financial
incentive from the regional adjustment to the benchmark.
Comment: A few commenters stated that CMS has provided no citations
or other details as to the source of the data used in the proposed
rule. One commenter suggested that in the future CMS should conduct a
formal evaluation of the Shared Savings Program, and share the
evaluation with stakeholders in advance of rulemaking to aid in the
preparation of comments.
Response: CMS makes data publically available on CMS websites in
several formats to provide ACOs, providers, and researchers with
information to evaluate the Shared Savings Program. CMS provides Public
Use Files describing Shared Savings Program Quality and Finance
Performance, ACO participation, and Regional FFS expenditures,
assignment, and CMS-Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) prospective
risk scores. CMS also makes Research Identifiable Files that include
information for every beneficiary assigned to a Shared Savings Program
ACO and for all providers participating in a Shared Savings Program
ACO, available for a fee through the Research Data Assistance Center
(www.resdac.org) to researchers who have obtained an appropriate Data
Use Agreement. CMS also included summaries of several program
evaluations in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the August 2018
proposed rule. We will continue to consider making additional data and
evaluation results publically available during future rulemaking and at
such other times as may be appropriate.
c. Detailed Stochastic Modeling Results
A simulation model involving the assumptions and assumption ranges
described in the previous section was constructed and a total of 1,000
randomized trials were produced. Table 17 summarizes the annual
projected mean impact (projected differences under the changes to the
program finalized in this rule relative to the current baseline
program) on ACO participation, federal spending on Parts A and B
claims, ACO earnings from shared savings net of shared losses, and the
net federal impact (effect on claims net of the change in shared
savings/shared losses payments). The overall average projection of the
impact of the final program changes is approximately $2.9 billion in
lower overall federal spending over 10 years from 2019 through 2028
relative to a baseline that assumes the prior program regulations
remain in effect through this ten year period. The 10th and 90th
percentiles from the range of projected 10-year impacts range from -
$5.14 billion to -$680 million in lower spending, respectively. The
mean impact is comprised of about -$950 million in lower claims
spending, $2.43 billion in reduced shared savings payments, net of
shared loss receipts, and approximately $490 million in additional
incentive payments made under the Quality Payment Program to additional
ACO providers/suppliers expected to become Qualifying APM Participants
(mainly for performance years prior to 2023 where the Quality Payment
Program incentive made during the corresponding payment year is 5
percent of Physician Fee Schedule revenue).
[[Page 68054]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.021
The overall drop in expected participation is mainly due to the
expectation that the program will be less likely to attract new ACO
formation in future years as the number of risk-free years available to
new ACOs will be reduced from 6 years (two, 3-year agreement periods in
current Track 1) to up to 3 years for low revenue ACOs or 2 years for
high revenue ACOs in the BASIC track. However, the changes are expected
to increase continued participation from existing ACOs, especially
those currently facing mandated transition to risk in a third agreement
period starting in 2019, 2020, or 2021 under the existing regulations,
as well as certain other higher cost ACOs for which the moderated
capped regional adjustment will not reduce their benchmark as
significantly as prescribed by current regulation.
Relatively small increases in spending in years 2019 through 2021
are largely driven by expectations for more favorable risk adjustment
to ACOs' updated benchmarks and a temporary delay in migration of
certain existing ACOs to performance-based risk. Savings grow
significantly in the out years as a greater share of existing ACOs
eventually transition to higher levels of risk and the savings from
capping the regional adjustment to the benchmark grow because ACOs
would increasingly have become eligible for higher uncapped adjustments
under the baseline in the later years of the projection period.
This final rule includes changes from the proposed rule that
improve the business case for certain ACOs to renew or join the
program. Such changes include higher shared savings rates in certain
years of the BASIC track, reduced weights on regional adjustments to
benchmarks for ACOs with per capita spending above their region, and
the option for new low-revenue ACOs to participate in 3 risk-free years
under the BASIC track before moving to BASIC level E for the last 2
years of their first agreement period. Relative to the proposed rule
projection, these changes are estimated to increase participation by
existing and new ACOs and thereby increase the projected savings on
claims to a greater extent than we anticipate overall shared savings
payments will grow. Such changes account for most of the difference
(roughly $500 million greater net program savings) between the proposed
rule projection of $2.24 billion in net savings and the final rule
projected net savings of $2.9 billion. The remainder of the difference
(about $150 million in increased net program savings) results from our
decision not to finalize the proposed negative 3 percent cap on risk
adjustment if an ACO's assigned population average HCC risk score
declined beyond such point over the course of its agreement period.
The mean projection of $2.9 billion reduced overall federal
spending is a reasonable point estimate of the impact of the changes to
the Shared Savings Program included in this final rule during the
period between 2019 through 2028. However, we emphasize the possibility
of outcomes differing substantially from the median estimate, as
illustrated by the estimate
[[Page 68055]]
distribution. Accordingly, this RIA presents the costs and benefits of
this final rule to the best of our ability. As further data emerges and
is analyzed, we may improve the precision of future financial impact
estimates.
To the extent that the changes to the Shared Savings Program being
made through the final rule will result in net savings or costs to Part
B of Medicare, revenues from Part B beneficiary premiums will also be
correspondingly lower or higher. In addition, because MA payment rates
depend on the level of spending within traditional FFS Medicare,
savings or costs arising from these changes to the Shared Savings
Program will result in corresponding adjustments to MA payment rates.
Neither of these secondary impacts has been included in the analysis
shown.
Comment: A number of comments highlighted the proposed reduced 25
percent maximum savings sharing rates in certain performance years
under the glide path in the BASIC track and/or the use of regional
spending to adjust ACO benchmarks in their first agreement period as
problematic for generating optimal program participation.
Response: The proposed changes were intended to move more ACOs into
performance-based risk and thereby promote stronger efforts to improve
the efficiency of care delivery. We have noted other proposed (and now
final) changes that many commenters support, like the change in the
risk adjustment methodology and the extended 5-year agreement periods,
as changes that are expected to help many ACOs to manage such
transition successfully. Furthermore, the final rule increases the
sharing rate in one-sided models under the BASIC track to 40 percent
and in all two-sided models under the BASIC track to 50 percent,
thereby improving the incentive for ACOs to begin such transition along
the glide path under the BASIC track. Additionally, the final rule
moderates the regional adjustment applied in the first and second
agreement periods when determining the benchmark for ACOs with average
spending higher than their region by reducing the applicable adjustment
weight from 25 percent to 15 percent in the first agreement period and
from 35 percent to 25 percent in the second agreement period. This
change is also anticipated to improve the likelihood a wider mix of
ACOs will successfully make the transition to performance-based risk.
Comment: One commenter was concerned by projections that many ACOs
would leave the program, and fewer would choose to enter it.
Response: The final rule includes changes that are expected to
improve the likelihood of participation from ACOs that may not
otherwise have joined the program or renewed their participation,
including ACOs already reaching the end of their 6 years of Track 1
participation that would, without the changes in this rule, face higher
risk in Track 2 or Track 3 than what will be required under the BASIC
track glide path. Other changes including implementing HCC risk
adjustment with a 3 percent cap on increases, reducing the weight of
the regional adjustment for ACOs that are higher cost than their
region, and extending the agreement period from 3 years to 5 years, are
expected to offer a more appealing business case for certain ACOs to
participate. As a result we are now projecting only 36 fewer ACOs
participating by the end of the 10 year projection period compared to
the projection of 109 fewer in the proposed rule, and we actually
expect higher overall participation in the first half of the projection
period when many existing ACOs would have already faced the end of
their available time in the one-sided model under Track 1 under the
prior participation options.
2. Effects on Beneficiaries
Earlier in this analysis we describe evidence for the Shared
Savings Program's positive effects on the efficiency of care delivered
by ACO providers/suppliers over the first 5 years of the program.
Reduced unnecessary utilization can lead to financial benefits for
beneficiaries by way of lower Part B premiums or reduced out of pocket
cost sharing or both. Certain beneficiaries may also benefit from the
provision of in-kind items and services by ACOs that are reasonably
connected to the beneficiary's medical care and are preventive care
items or services or advance a clinical goal for the beneficiary. The
value of care delivered to beneficiaries also depends on the quality of
that care. Evidence indicates there have been incremental improvements
in quality of care reported for ACO providers/suppliers. As previously
noted in the Background section of this RIA, for all ACOs that
participated during performance year 2016 that had four or more years
of experience in the program, average quality performance improved by
15 percent across the 25 measures used consistently across PYs 2013 to
2016.
As explained in more detail previously, we believe the changes we
are making in this final rule will provide additional incentives for
ACOs to improve care management efforts and maintain program
participation. In addition, ACOs with low baseline expenditures
relative to their region are more likely to transition to and sustain
participation in a risk track (either the BASIC track (Level E) or the
ENHANCED track) in future agreement periods. Consequently, the changes
in this rule will also benefit beneficiaries through greater
beneficiary engagement and active participation in their care (via
beneficiary incentives) and broader improvements in accountability and
care coordination (such as through expanded use of telehealth services
and extending eligibility for the waiver of the SNF 3-day rule to all
ACOs accepting performance-based risk) than would occur in the absence
of these changes. Lastly, we estimate that the net impacts on federal
spending, as previously detailed, will correspond to savings to
beneficiaries in the form of reductions in Part B premium payments of
approximately $380 million over the 10 year projection period through
2028.
We intend to continue to analyze emerging program data to monitor
for any potential unintended effect that the use of a regional
adjustment (as modified in this final rule) to determine the historical
benchmarks for additional cohorts of ACOs could potentially have on the
incentive for ACOs to serve vulnerable populations (and for ACOs to
maintain existing partnerships with providers and suppliers serving
such populations).
3. Effects on Providers and Suppliers
As noted previously, the changes in this final rule aim to improve
the ability for ACOs to transition to performance-based risk and
provide higher value care. We believe the contemporaneous growth of ACO
agreements with other payers is sufficiently mature (and invariably
heterogeneous in structure) that it will not be materially affected by
the changes to specific features of the Shared Savings Program that we
are adopting in this final rule. Although the elimination of Track 1 is
expected to ultimately reduce the overall number of ACOs participating
in the program, this change might also create opportunities for more
effective ACOs to step in and serve the beneficiaries who were
previously assigned to other ACOs that leave the program. In addition,
other new policies (including changes to HCC risk adjustment, longer 5-
year agreement periods, gradual expansion of exposure to risk in the
BASIC track, and allowing eligible low revenue ACOs to renew for a
second agreement period in Level E of the BASIC track) are expected to
increase the number of existing and new ACOs that ultimately make a
sustained
[[Page 68056]]
transition to performance-based risk. Such transition is expected to
help ACOs more effectively engage with their ACO participants and ACO
providers/suppliers in transforming care delivery.
Changes to the methodology for making regional adjustments to the
historical benchmark are expected to affect ACOs differently depending
on their circumstances. Similar to observations described in the June
2016 final rule, certain ACOs that joined the program from a high
expenditure baseline relative to their region and that showed savings
under the first and/or second agreement period benchmark methodology
that did not include a regional adjustment will likely expect lower
benchmarks and greater likelihood of shared losses under a methodology
that includes a 15 percent weight on the regional expenditure
adjustment in the first agreement period in which the adjustment is
applied, and higher weights in subsequent agreement periods.
Additionally, certain ACOs that joined the program with relatively low
expenditures relative to their region might expect significant shared
savings payments even if they failed to generate shared savings in
their first agreement period prior to the application of the regional
adjustment to the benchmark. Limiting the weight of the regional
adjustment to the benchmark to 50 percent, reducing the weight for high
cost ACOs to 15 percent in the first agreement period and 25 percent in
the second agreement period, and capping the adjustment at positive or
negative 5 percent of national average per capita FFS spending for
assignable beneficiaries, will serve to preserve the incentive for low
cost ACOs to maintain participation and accept performance-based risk
while also improving the business case for high cost ACOs to continue
to participate and drive their costs down toward parity with or even
below their regional average. Therefore, the changes to the regional
adjustment are expected to increase participation by ACOs in risk
tracks by broadening the mix of ACOs with plausible business cases for
participation without creating excessive residual windfall payments to
ACOs with very low baseline costs or unreasonably punitive decreases to
benchmarks for ACOs serving very high cost populations at baseline. The
increase in sustained participation in performance-based risk is
evidenced by the projection of $490 million in increased incentive
payments under the Quality Payment Program to ACO providers/suppliers
achieving status as Qualifying APM Participants due to increased ACO
participation in risk-based tracks of the Shared Savings Program.
Conversely, the projected $2.43 billion in lower overall 10-year shared
savings payments to ACOs reflects the prudent limitations that will be
placed on the regional adjustment to the benchmark for ACOs that are
very low cost relative to their region prior to rebasing.
Several other changes are expected to provide certain ACOs with
stronger business cases for participating in the program. Transition to
full HCC risk adjustment (capped at positive 3 percent) regardless of
beneficiary assignment status is expected to increase the resulting
adjusted updated benchmark for the average ACO and better reflect
actual shifts in assigned patient morbidity. Blending national with
regional trend for ACO benchmark calculations is also expected to
mitigate some ACOs' concerns regarding the problem of hyper competition
against other ACOs in highly-saturated markets, as well as the
potential that large ACOs will drive the regional trend they are
ultimately measured against. These factors contribute to the expanded
participation expected in performance-based risk and the resulting
increase in savings on claims through more efficient care delivery. In
this final rule we are making modifications to certain elements of the
proposed rule, including increasing the shared savings rates in certain
years of the BASIC track and reducing the weight on the regional
adjustment for high cost ACOs; such changes are estimated to increase
overall program net savings by bolstering participation and thereby
reducing claims costs more significantly than the resulting increases
in overall shared savings payments to ACOs.
We have made program data available that can help stakeholders
evaluate the impact the final rule changes, as previously described,
may have on individual ACOs in various markets. The Center for Medicare
(CM) has created standard analytical files incorporating factors based
on regional FFS expenditures (currently available for CYs 2014, 2015,
2016, and 2017) that specifically tabulate--(1) aggregate expenditure
and risk score data for assignable beneficiaries by county; and (2) the
number of beneficiaries assigned to ACOs, by county. These public use
files can be obtained at the following website https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Downloadable-Public-Use-Files/SSPACO/SSP_Benchmark_Rebasing.html.
CM has also created standard analytical files that contain ACO-
specific metrics as well as summarized beneficiary and provider
information for each performance year of the Shared Savings Program.
These files include ACO-specific annual data on financial and quality
performance, person years and demographic characteristics of assigned
beneficiaries, aggregate expenditure and utilization, and participant
composition of the ACO. The public use files for 2013 through 2017 can
be obtained at the following website https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Downloadable-Public-Use-Files/SSPACO/index.html.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the potential
negative impact on Medicare beneficiaries and entire communities that
depend on hospitals and health systems to treat all patients, including
uninsured and underinsured populations, of the proposed requirement
that high revenue ACOs participate under an accelerated path to
performance-based risk. In particular, one commenter explained that
not-for-profit providers may be challenged to provide the same level of
charity care to their indigent patients under this approach.
Response: We acknowledge the particular challenges faced by safety
net providers and the considerations these organizations must weigh in
assessing their readiness for program participation in general, and
participation under performance-based risk more specifically. We note
that all ACO providers/suppliers continue to receive traditional
Medicare FFS payments under Parts A and B, and may receive from
additional payments the ACO if the ACO meets specified quality and
savings requirements of the Shared Savings Program. We have observed
that ACOs that serve high rates of dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries have shared savings at higher rate than other ACOs. As a
result, we believe the dually eligible Medicare and Medicaid population
represents a significant opportunity for ACOs to generate savings
through care coordination and quality improvement. We also note that
clinicians, including safety net clinicians that participate in
Advanced APMs may qualify for incentive payments, which could provide
additional resources to safety net providers.
We believe that the combination of policies included as part of the
redesign of the Shared Savings Program we are finalizing with this
final rule will support ACOs, including ACOs that serve the most
complex patients and ACOs with safety net providers as ACO
participants, as they transition to
[[Page 68057]]
performance-based risk. In particular, we believe the availability of
the BASIC track's glide path for ACOs inexperienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, longer agreement periods (of at
least 5 years instead of 3-year agreements) which could allow for more
predictable historical benchmarks and therefore greater opportunity for
ACOs to achieve savings against these benchmarks, a new coding
intensity adjustment that permits moderate risk score growth, and lower
regional adjustments to historical benchmarks for ACOs that are
determined to be higher spending compared to their regional service
area will support ACOs as they transition to performance-based risk.
Further, additional program flexibilities we are finalizing with this
final rule, such as broader access to a SNF 3-day rule waiver and
expanded use of telehealth services for eligible ACOs under a two-sided
model (see section II.B. of this final rule) could also support care
coordination and the delivery of care by safety net providers and the
populations they serve.
4. Effect on Small Entities
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief
of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities
include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Most physician practices, hospitals, and
other providers are small entities either by virtue of their nonprofit
status or by qualifying as a small business under the Small Business
Administration's size standards (revenues of less than $7.5 to $38.5
million in any 1 year; NAIC Sector-62 series). States and individuals
are not included in the definition of a small entity. For details, see
the Small Business Administration's website at http://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards. For purposes of the RFA,
approximately 95 percent of physicians are considered to be small
entities. There are over 1 million physicians, other practitioners, and
medical suppliers that receive Medicare payment under the Physician Fee
Schedule.
Although the Shared Savings Program is a voluntary program and
payments for individual items and services will continue to be made on
a FFS basis, we acknowledge that the program can affect many small
entities and have developed our rules and regulations accordingly in
order to minimize costs and administrative burden on such entities as
well as to maximize their opportunity to participate. (For example:
Networks of individual practices of ACO professionals are eligible to
form an ACO; the use of an MSR under Level A and Level B of the BASIC
track, and, if elected by the ACO, under the ENHANCED track and Levels
C through E of the BASIC track, that varies by the size of the ACO's
population and is calculated based on confidence intervals so that
smaller ACOs have relatively lower MSRs; and low revenue ACOs may
remain under reduced downside risk in a second agreement period under
Level E of the BASIC track).
Small entities are both allowed and encouraged to participate in
the Shared Savings Program, provided the ACO has a minimum of 5,000
assigned beneficiaries, thereby potentially realizing the economic
benefits of receiving shared savings resulting from the utilization of
enhanced and efficient systems of care and care coordination.
Therefore, a solo, small physician practice or other small entity may
realize economic benefits as a function of participating in this
program and the utilization of enhanced clinical systems integration,
which otherwise may not have been possible. We believe the policies
included in this final rule may further encourage participation by
small entities in existing ACOs that may otherwise not find it possible
to quickly assume the much higher exposure to downside risk required
under the ENHANCED track. Specifically, we believe our policy of
allowing eligible low revenue ACOs up to 2 agreement periods in the
BASIC track (with the second agreement period at the highest level of
risk and potential reward) where downside risk exposure is limited to a
percentage of ACO participants' Medicare FFS revenue (capped at a
percentage of the ACO's benchmark), and the option for new, low revenue
ACOs to participate under one-sided risk for 3 performance years (or 4
performance years in the case of ACOs entering an agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019) in exchange for moving to the highest level
of risk and potential reward under the BASIC track for the final two
performance years in the agreement period, will support low revenue
ACOs by permitting a gradual transition to performance-based risk.
As detailed in this RIA, total expected incentive payments made
under the Quality Payment Program to Qualifying APM Participants are
expected to increase by $490 million over the 2019 to 2028 period as a
result of changes that will increase participation in the Shared
Savings Program by certain ACOs and therefore increase the average
small entity's earnings from such incentives. We also note that the
final policy under which each agreement period will be extended to 5
years (or 6 years for ACOs entering a new agreement period on July 1,
2019) offers greater certainty to ACOs, including small entities,
regarding their benchmark as they approach the higher levels of risk
required in the higher levels of the BASIC track and under the ENHANCED
track.
5. Effect on Small Rural Hospitals
Section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory
impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the
operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This
analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For
purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural
hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a metropolitan
statistical area and has fewer than 100 beds. Although the Shared
Savings Program is a voluntary program, this final rule will have a
significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small
rural hospitals. In the proposed rule, we sought comment from small
rural hospitals on the proposed changes, with special focus on the
impact of the proposed changes to the adjustment to the benchmark to
reflect regional FFS expenditures. (We noted that the data currently
available on the CMS website, as described in the Effects on Providers
and Suppliers section, may be useful for commenters to estimate the
effects of the proposed changes for their particular ACO and/or
market.) We discuss comments related to the phase-in of regional
adjustment weights in section II.D.3 of this final rule.
As discussed in section II.D of this final rule, we are finalizing
changes to our regulations such that benchmark adjustments for regional
spending are limited to at most a 50 percent weight, with reduced
weights in initial agreement periods for ACOs that are high cost
relative to their region. The amount of the regional adjustment will be
capped for all ACOs at positive or negative 5 percent of national
average per capita FFS spending for assignable beneficiaries. Given the
variation that can exist across regions, the schedule of weights we are
finalizing should recognize efficient rural providers, while providing
more time for those rural providers and suppliers that care for high
risk patients to come into line with regional spending and move to
shared savings. Additionally, in this final rule we are revising our
risk adjustment methodology to allow for full HCC risk adjustment (with
a
[[Page 68058]]
positive 3 percent cap) regardless of beneficiary assignment status and
making changes to the benchmarking methodology to provide for the use
of a blend of national and regional trends in benchmark calculations.
Such changes could help to provide a stronger business case for ACOs
built around rural hospitals that may have otherwise been concerned
about serving a higher-risk population in their region or driving the
local trends in the region against which they will be compared.
In this final rule, we are also making revisions to our original
proposal for determining ACO participation options based on a
combination of factors (ACO participants' Medicare FFS revenue, and the
ACO's experience with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives)
to allow use of a higher percentage in determining whether an ACO is a
low revenue ACO versus high revenue ACO. As we discuss in section
II.A.5.b of this final rule, under this approach we believe more ACOs
will be identified as low revenue ACOs and therefore potentially
eligible to remain in lower risk for longer, specifically to
participate in the BASIC track for up to two, 5-year agreement periods,
with the second agreement period in Level E. We believe these changes,
in addition to the alternative participation option we are finalizing
under which low revenue ACOs, that are legal entities without prior
experience in the Shared Savings Program, may elect an additional year
under a one-sided model of the BASIC track's glide path prior to
transitioning to Level E (the highest level of risk and potential
reward in the BASIC track), will provide a gentler pathway to
performance-based risk for small, rural and physician-only ACOs.
6. Unfunded Mandates
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) also
requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100
million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2018, that
is approximately $150 million. This final rule does not include any
mandate that will result in spending by state, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in the amount
of $150 million in any 1 year. Further, participation in this program
is voluntary and is not mandated.
7. Regulatory Review Cost Estimation
We assume all 561 ACOs that participated in the Medicare Shared
Savings Program during performance year 2018 will review on average
half of this final rule. For example, it is possible that certain ACOs
may limit review to issues related only to the BASIC track and not the
ENHANCED track or rely on a partnership with a management company,
health plan, trade association or other entity that reviews the final
rule and advises multiple ACO partners. We used a similar approach to
estimate the burden of reviewing the proposed rule. However, we
acknowledged that this approach may understate or overstate the costs
of reviewing this rule. We welcomed comments on the approach in
estimating the number of entities reviewing the rule and the scope of
the average review, but did not receive any comments on this issue.
Using the wage information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for
medical and health service managers (Code 11-9111), we estimate that
the cost of reviewing this rule is $107.38 per hour, where the assumed
hourly wage of $53.69 has been increased by a factor of 2 to account
for fringe benefits.\38\ Assuming an average reading speed of 250 words
per minute, we estimate it will take approximately 9 hours for the
staff to review half of this final rule. For each ACO the estimated
cost is $966 (9 hours x $107.38 per hour). Therefore, we estimate the
total cost of reviewing this final regulation is approximately $542,000
($966.42 x 561 ACOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Occupational Employment Statistics available online at
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Other Impacts on Regulatory Burden
We estimate that extending the agreement period to 5 years may
reduce certain administrative costs incurred by ACOs. In its review of
the Physician Group Practice demonstration, GAO estimated the average
entity spent $107,595 on initial startup for administrative processes.
We assume roughly one-tenth of such total startup amount will represent
the administrative expenses of renewal for an ACO entering a renewed
agreement period ($10,760 per ACO). Therefore, we estimate extending
the agreement period to 5 years will reduce ACO administrative burden
by approximately $6 million over 10 years ($10,760 x 561 ACOs).
As we explained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed
rule, we did not believe that the proposed policies would otherwise
materially impact the burden on ACOs for compliance with the
requirements of the Shared Savings Program. We stated that the annual
certification and application process would remain comparable to the
existing program requirements (setting aside the change to 5-year
agreement periods as noted in the previous paragraph). We also
anticipate at most a modest additional burden for the modified
beneficiary notification requirements under Sec. 425.312, because ACOs
and ACO participants will be able to utilize low cost options for
notification, including, for example, email or electronic patient
portals. To the extent that individual beneficiary notification causes
additional beneficiaries to request personalized explanations from ACO
representatives or participating providers and suppliers (beyond any
such questions that would have arisen under the prior notification
requirement), we assume on average 10 percent of assigned
beneficiaries, once per agreement period, require five minute
conversations that involve an ACO or ACO provider/supplier employee
with hourly wage averaging $20, implying a total net added burden of
approximately $3.3 million over ten years. We sought comment if
stakeholders had reason to believe the proposed changes would
materially change the burden of participation in the program that
surpassed what we have estimated, as described previously.
Comment: Some comments cited the reduced sharing rates (as low as
25 percent) that were proposed for certain performance years in the
BASIC track as problematic for ACOs estimating whether the cost of
participation would be worth the potential return. Also cited as a
barrier for continued participation was the cost of taking on
performance-based risk for ACOs that may not have the experience or
capital available for such transition.
Response: Elements of the proposed program redesign that were
intended to help ACOs manage the transition to performance-based risk
are bolstered by modifications to our original proposals that we are
making in this final rule, including increasing the BASIC track maximum
sharing rate percentages to 40 percent (Level A and B) and 50 percent
(Level C, D, E), respectively, and allowing new legal entities that are
determined to be low revenue ACOs participating in the BASIC track's
glide path, to elect to remain in a one-sided model for up to 3
performance years (or 4 performance years in the case of ACOs entering
an agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019) before transitioning to
Level E for the final 2 performance years of their agreement period.
Additionally, in this final rule we have increased the threshold used
to determine low revenue ACOs (by comparing ACO participants' total
Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue to total Medicare Parts A
[[Page 68059]]
and B FFS expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries) from 25 to
35 percent. Increasing the threshold will allow additional ACOs the
option to remain in lower levels of performance-based risk for a second
agreement period. Additionally, as described in section II.A.6.c. of
this final rule, we are finalizing our proposed requirements regarding
repayment mechanism arrangement amounts with modifications that are
designed to reduce the burden of these arrangements on ACOs
participating in Level C, Level D, or Level E of the BASIC track and
the ENHANCED track, including any low-revenue ACOs in those tracks.
Lastly, the benchmarks for ACOs that are high cost in relation to their
region will not be reduced as quickly as originally proposed because a
lower regional adjustment weight of 15 percent (compared to the 25
percent weight originally proposed) will be used to calculate the
historical benchmark for such an ACO in the first agreement period in
which the regional adjustment applies.
Comment: We received several comments suggesting that CMS does not
fully recognize the administrative and upfront investment required to
participate in the Shared Savings Program. One commenter urged CMS to
allow ACOs additional time under a one-sided model in order to ensure
that they have an opportunity in which to earn a return on their
initial investments. One commenter suggested CMS place a proportionate
emphasis on both quality and financial improvements when evaluating
when ACOs are ready to undertake additional risk and allow time for
ACOs to experience a return on initial investments.
Response: We acknowledge that ACOs make upfront investments such as
in care delivery infrastructure, data analytics and staffing, with the
intent of saving money through improvements in care management and
coordination. In developing our policies for the Shared Savings
Program, including the new policies we are adopting in this final rule,
we have sought to minimize costs and administrative burden as well as
to maximize opportunities to participate. For example, we estimate that
extending the agreement period to 5 years may reduce certain
administrative costs incurred by ACOs. Additionally, we expect certain
other policies will help to offset upfront investments and bolster the
business case for ACOs to continue participation in the Shared Savings
Program, including the ability for ACO providers/suppliers to qualify
for Advanced APM incentive payments, the application of a positive
adjustment to the ACO's benchmark if its spending is below regional
spending, and the use of risk adjustment methodology that allows for
limited upward adjustments if the average HCC risk score rises for the
ACO assigned population.
D. Alternatives Considered
A particularly significant element of the changes to the
benchmarking methodology included in this final rule is the final
policy that limits the effect of regional adjustments on rebased ACO
historical benchmarks via a cap of positive or negative 5 percent of
national average per capita FFS expenditures for assignable
beneficiaries. If the final policy were amended to remove this cap then
shared savings payments to low cost ACOs and selective participation
decisions would increase the cost of the final rule by roughly $4.4
billion such that the estimated $2.9 billion savings relative to
current regulation baseline (as estimated for this final rule in the
previous sections) would instead be projected as a $1.5 billion cost.
Another alternative considered would have been to push back the
first agreement periods under the proposed new participation options
and all other applicable changes to a January 1, 2020 start date. This
would avoid the complexity of a July 1, 2019 midyear start date. ACOs
otherwise eligible to renew their participation in the program in 2019
would be offered a 1-year extension under their current agreement
periods. This alternative would have had differing impacts on federal
spending.
Forgoing the proposed July 1, 2019 start date and providing for the
next available start date of January 1, 2020, would have likely
marginally increased spending on claims through a combination of
factors. In addition, this approach would have delayed, by 6 months,
the transition into performance-based risk for certain ACOs whose
current agreement periods will end on December 31, 2018. Forgoing the
proposed July 1, 2019 start date likely also would have caused a
temporary increase in overall shared savings payments to such ACOs
during 2019 because of the additional year lag between the historical
baseline expenditures and the 2019 performance year expenditures under
the extended agreement period. However, this alternative would also
have had a slightly greater effect in reducing Federal spending in
later years through a combination of factors. Under this approach, the
third historical benchmark year of the subsequent agreement period for
such ACOs would have been CY 2019 rather than CY 2018, as will be the
case under the finalized July 1, 2019 start date. The use of historical
expenditures from 2017 through 2019, rather than 2016 through 2018, to
determine the benchmark for these ACOs would have marginally reduced
the cumulative variation affecting benchmark accuracy in 2024, the
final year of these ACOs' first agreement period under the policies in
this final rule. We would have also anticipated a reduction in
incentive payments made under the Quality Payment Program in 2021
(which are based on participation by eligible clinicians in Advanced
APMs during 2019) by delaying the transition to performance-based risk
for certain ACOs to 2020 instead of July 1, 2019.
We also considered the potential impact of adopting the alternative
beneficiary assignment methodology that was discussed in the proposed
rule, under which ACOs would be allowed to elect a beneficiary opt-in
based assignment methodology supplemented by a modified claims-based
assignment methodology for beneficiaries who have received the
plurality of their primary care and at least seven primary care
services, from one or more ACO professionals in the ACO during the
applicable assignment window and voluntary alignment. However,
significant uncertainties potentially impacting the program in
offsetting ways made projecting the impact difficult, and we chose not
to adopt a beneficiary opt-in assignment methodology at this time.
Although it is possible that ACOs electing such methodology could more
effectively target care management to more engaged and/or needier
subpopulations of patients, it is also possible that such targeting
could deter ACOs from deploying more comprehensive care delivery reform
across a wider mix of patients served by ACO providers/suppliers. It is
also unclear if many ACOs would see value in a more restrictive
assignment approach as they may be hesitant to voluntarily reduce their
overall number of assigned beneficiaries and consequently lower their
total benchmark spending and the magnitude of potential shared savings.
Furthermore, it is not currently empirically possible to determine if
the potential method for adjusting benchmark expenditures that was
described in the proposed rule would provide sufficient accuracy in
setting spending targets or if it could be vulnerable to higher claims
variation and/or bias because of the selective
[[Page 68060]]
nature of beneficiaries who opt in, voluntarily align, or meet the
modified claims-based assignment criteria in order to be assigned to
the ACO. Such uncertainties and challenges may be likely to dissuade
ACOs from electing such alternative assignment methodology over the
existing options rooted in a broader claims-based assignment
methodology supplemented by voluntary alignment, which current
experience shows generally duplicates assignment for a subset of
beneficiaries that would have been assigned via the existing claims-
based assignment methodology. We note that although some commenters
supported a hybrid assignment approach using opt-in and claims-based
assignment (often confusing opt-in with the current voluntary alignment
process), most commenters disagreed with this approach. Most of the
commenters raised operational and administrative concerns in recruiting
beneficiaries and putting in place the systems (both IT support systems
and personnel) to support this approach. If few ACOs were to elect this
potential alternative assignment methodology then the impact on program
spending would also be minimal.
E. Compliance With Requirements of Section 1899(i)(3)(B) of the Act
Certain policies, including both existing policies and the new
policies we are adopting in this final rule, rely upon the authority
granted in section 1899(i)(3) of the Act to use other payment models
that the Secretary determines will improve the quality and efficiency
of items and services furnished to Medicare FFS beneficiaries. Section
1899(i)(3)(B) of the Act requires that such other payment model must
not result in additional program expenditures. Policies falling under
the authority of section 1899(i)(3) of the Act include--(1)
performance-based risk; (2) refining the calculation of national
expenditures used to update the historical benchmark to reflect the
assignable subpopulation of total FFS enrollment; (3) updating
benchmarks with a blend of regional and national trends as opposed to
the national average absolute growth in per capita spending; (4)
reconciling the two 6-month performance years during 2019 based on
expenditures for all of CY 2019, and pro-rating any resulting shared
savings or shared losses; and (5) adjusting performance year
expenditures to remove IME, DSH, and uncompensated care payments.
A comparison was constructed between the projected impact of the
payment methodology that incorporates all changes and a hypothetical
baseline payment methodology that excludes the elements described
previously that require section 1899(i)(3) of the Act authority--most
importantly performance-based risk in the ENHANCED track and Levels C,
D, and E of the BASIC track and updating benchmarks using a blend of
regional and national trends. The hypothetical baseline was assumed to
include adjustments allowed under section 1899(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act
including the up to 50 percent weight used in calculating the regional
adjustment to the ACO's rebased historical benchmark, as finalized in
this rule (depending on the number of rebasings and the direction of
the adjustment), capped at positive or negative 5 percent of national
average per capita FFS expenditures for assignable beneficiaries. The
stochastic model and associated assumptions described previously in
this section were adapted to reflect a higher range of potential
participation given the perpetually sharing-only incentive structure of
the hypothetical baseline model. Such analysis estimated approximately
$4 billion greater average net program savings under the alternative
payment model that includes all policies that require the authority of
section 1899(i)(3) of Act than will be expected under the hypothetical
baseline in total over the 2019 to 2028 projection period. The
alternative payment model, as finalized in this rule, is projected to
result in greater savings on benefit costs and reduced net payments to
ACOs. In the final projection year, the alternative payment model is
estimated to have 10 percent greater savings on benefit costs, 15
percent lower spending on net shared savings payments to ACOs, with 39
percent reduced overall ACO participation compared to the hypothetical
baseline model.
Participation in performance-based risk in the ENHANCED track and
the higher levels of the BASIC track is assumed to improve the
incentive for ACOs to increase the efficiency of care for beneficiaries
(similar to the assumptions used in the modeling of the impacts,
described previously). Such added savings are partly offset by lower
participation associated with the requirement to transition to
performance-based risk. Despite the higher maximum sharing rate of 75
percent in the ENHANCED track under the alternative payment model under
section 1899(i)(3) of the Act, relative to the 50 percent maximum
sharing rate assumed for the single one-sided risk track under the
hypothetical baseline, shared savings payments are expected to be
reduced relative to the hypothetical baseline because of lower expected
participation resulting from the elimination of Track 1, more accurate
benchmarks due to the incorporation of regional factors into the
calculation of benchmark updates for all ACOs, and the cap on the
regional benchmark adjustment of positive or negative 5 percent of the
national average per capita FFS spending amount for assignable
beneficiaries.
We will reexamine this projection in the future to ensure that the
requirement under section 1899(i)(3)(B) of the Act that an alternative
payment model not result in additional program expenditures continues
to be satisfied. In the event that we later determine that the payment
model established under section 1899(i)(3) of the Act no longer meets
this requirement, we will undertake additional notice and comment
rulemaking to make adjustments to the payment model to assure continued
compliance with the statutory requirements.
F. Accounting Statement and Table
As required by OMB Circular A-4 under Executive Order 12866, in
Table 18, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the change
in--(1) net federal monetary transfers; (2) shared savings payments to
ACOs net of shared loss payments from ACOs; and (3) incentive payments
made under the Quality Payment Program to additional ACO providers/
suppliers expected to become Qualifying APM Participants from 2019 to
2028 who would not have been expected to achieve such status absent the
changes we are adopting in this final rule.
[[Page 68061]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.022
G. Regulatory Reform Analysis Under Executive Order 13771
Executive Order 13771, entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs (82 FR 9339), was issued on January 30, 2017. The
modifications in this final rule are expected to primarily have effects
on transfers via lower claims spending and shared savings outlays as
described previously in this regulatory impact analysis. However these
modifications are also anticipated to marginally reduce the
administrative burden on participating ACOs by roughly $2.16 million
over 10 years (as detailed previously in this RIA) which corresponds to
an annualized net cost savings of $126,000 when discounted at 7 percent
relative to year 2016; therefore this final rule, will be considered a
deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771.
H. Conclusion
The analysis in this section, together with the remainder of this
preamble, provides a regulatory impact analysis. As a result of this
final rule, the median estimate of the financial impact of the Shared
Savings Program for CYs 2019 through 2028 will be net federal savings
of $2.9 billion greater than the expected savings if no changes were
made. Although this is the best estimate of the financial impact of the
Shared Savings Program during CYs 2019 through 2028, a relatively wide
range of possible outcomes exists. While a small fraction of trials
projected significant increases in program spending, over 90 percent of
the stochastic trials resulted in significant overall spending
decreases over 10 years, with the 10th and 90th percentiles of the
estimated distribution showing a net decrease in spending of $680
million and $5.14 billion, respectively.
Overall, our analysis projects that faster transition from one-
sided model agreements--tempered by the option for eligible ACOs of a
gentler exposure to downside risk calculated as a percentage of ACO
participants' total Medicare Parts A and B FFS revenue and capped at a
percentage of the ACO's benchmark--can affect broader participation in
performance-based risk in the Shared Savings Program and reduce overall
claims costs. A second key driver of estimated net savings is the
reduction in shared savings payments from the new limitation on the
amount of the regional adjustment to the ACO's historical benchmark.
Such reduction in overall shared savings payments is projected to
result despite the benefit of higher net adjustments expected for a
larger number of ACOs from the use of a simpler HCC risk adjustment
methodology, the blending of national and regional trends for benchmark
calculations, and longer 5-year agreement periods that allow ACOs a
longer horizon from which to benefit from efficiency gains before
benchmark rebasing.
Therefore, the final changes are expected to improve the incentive
for ACOs to invest in effective care management efforts, increase the
number of ACOs participating under performance-based risk by
discontinuing Track 1 and Track 2, and offering instead a BASIC track
(which includes a glide path from a one-sided model to performance-
based risk for eligible ACOs) or the ENHANCED track (based on the
current design of Track 3), reduce the number of ACOs with poor
financial and quality performance (by eliminating Track 1, requiring
faster transition to performance-based risk, limiting high revenue ACOs
to 1 agreement period in the BASIC track and low revenue ACOs to 2
agreement periods in the BASIC track (second agreement period at Level
E), and increasing the monitoring of ACO financial performance), and
result in greater overall gains in savings on FFS benefit claims costs
while decreasing expected shared savings payments to ACOs.
We intend to monitor emerging results for ACO effects on claims
costs, changing participation (including risk for increased costs due
to high performing ACOs selecting to participate in a track (or a
payment model within a track) with greater rewards), and unforeseen
bias in benchmark adjustments due to diagnosis coding intensity shifts.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this
final rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
VI. Effective Date Exception
According to 5 U.S.C. 801, a major rule may be effective 60 days
after the date of publication in the Federal Register which allows for
Congressional review, unless there is good cause for an earlier
effective date under section 808(2). Good cause can be found when the
procedures within section 801 are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest, in which case the rule shall take
effect at a time as determined by the Federal agency promulgating the
rule.
In this final rule we are finalizing a July 1, 2019 agreement start
date for the redesigned participation options. This allows ACOs whose
agreement periods expire December 31, 2018 and who extended their
agreement for a 6-month performance year from January 1, 2019, through
June 30, 2019, to renew for a new agreement period beginning July 1,
2019 to continue their participation in the program without
interruption.
CMS will offer an application cycle for a one-time new agreement
period
[[Page 68062]]
start date of July 1, 2019. To ensure ACOs have sufficient time to
apply, and for CMS to adequately review these applications, the
application cycle activities must begin in January 2019 with a notice
of intent to apply, and application submission must occur by February
22, 2019.
Allowing for the final policies to become effective 60 days after
the publication of this final rule would provide ACOs with less time to
submit their applications and correct deficiencies, contract their
provider networks, and establish repayment mechanisms. We may need to
delay and shorten the application review period, allowing less time for
applicants to correct deficiencies and bring their organizations into
compliance with new program rules and requirements. This delay as a
result of a March 1, 2019 effective date would be impracticable because
it could prevent ACOs whose agreement periods expire June 30, 2019 from
completing the renewal process and as a result may leave no other
option for these organizations than to conclude their participation in
the program.
We also acknowledged that a delayed application due date for an
agreement period beginning in 2019 could affect parties planning to
participate in the Shared Savings Program for performance year 2019 and
that are relying on the pre-participation waiver.
As a result we find the delay in the effective date of the rule
until March 1, 2019 to be impracticable and unnecessary. We therefore
find there is good cause for an exception to the effective date to be
45 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 425
Administrative practice and procedure, Health facilities, Health
professions, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR part 425 as set forth below:
PART 425--MEDICARE SHARED SAVINGS PROGRAM
0
1. The authority citation for part 425 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302, 1306, 1395hh, and 1395jjj.
0
2. Section 425.20 is amended by adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ``Experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO
initiatives'', ``High revenue ACO'', ``Inexperienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives'', ``Low revenue ACO'';
``Performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative'', ``Re-entering
ACO'', and ``Renewing ACO'' to read as follows:
Sec. 425.20 Definitions.
* * * * *
Experienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives
means an ACO that CMS determines meets the criteria in either paragraph
(1) or (2) of this definition.
(1) The ACO is the same legal entity as a current or previous ACO
that is participating in, or has participated in, a performance-based
risk Medicare ACO initiative as defined under this section, or that
deferred its entry into a second Shared Savings Program agreement
period under a two-sided model under Sec. 425.200(e).
(2) Forty percent or more of the ACO's ACO participants
participated in a performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative, as
defined under this section, or in an ACO that deferred its entry into a
second Shared Savings Program agreement period under a two-sided model
under Sec. 425.200(e), in any of the 5 most recent performance years
prior to the agreement start date.
* * * * *
High revenue ACO means an ACO whose total Medicare Parts A and B
fee-for-service revenue of its ACO participants based on revenue for
the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of data are
available, is at least 35 percent of the total Medicare Parts A and B
fee-for-service expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries based
on expenditures for the most recent calendar year for which 12 months
of data are available.
* * * * *
Inexperienced with performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives
means an ACO that CMS determines meets all of the following:
(1) The ACO is a legal entity that has not participated in any
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative as defined under this
section, and has not deferred its entry into a second Shared Savings
Program agreement period under a two-sided model under Sec.
425.200(e).
(2) Less than 40 percent of the ACO's ACO participants participated
in a performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative, as defined under
this section, or in an ACO that deferred its entry into a second Shared
Savings Program agreement period under a two-sided model under Sec.
425.200(e), in each of the 5 most recent performance years prior to the
agreement start date.
Low revenue ACO means an ACO whose total Medicare Parts A and B
fee-for-service revenue of its ACO participants based on revenue for
the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of data are
available, is less than 35 percent of the total Medicare Parts A and B
fee-for-service expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries based
on expenditures for the most recent calendar year for which 12 months
of data are available.
* * * * *
Performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiative means, for purposes
of this part, an initiative implemented by CMS that requires an ACO to
participate under a two-sided model during its agreement period,
including the following options and initiatives:
(1) Participation options within the Shared Savings Program as
follows:
(i) BASIC track (Levels A through E).
(ii) ENHANCED track.
(iii) Track 2.
(2) The Innovation Center ACO models under which an ACO accepts
risk for shared losses as follows:
(i) Pioneer ACO Model.
(ii) Next Generation ACO Model.
(iii) Comprehensive ESRD Care Model two-sided risk tracks.
(iv) Track 1+ Model.
(3) Other initiatives involving two-sided risk as may be specified
by CMS.
* * * * *
Re-entering ACO means an ACO that does not meet the definition of a
renewing ACO and meets either of the following conditions:
(1) Is the same legal entity as an ACO, as defined in this section,
that previously participated in the program and is applying to
participate in the program after a break in participation, because it
is either--
(i) An ACO whose participation agreement expired without having
been renewed; or
(ii) An ACO whose participation agreement was terminated under
Sec. 425.218 or Sec. 425.220.
(2) Is a new legal entity that has never participated in the Shared
Savings Program and is applying to participate in the program and more
than 50 percent of its ACO participants were included on the ACO
participant list under Sec. 425.118, of the same ACO in any of the 5
most recent performance years prior to the agreement start date.
Renewing ACO means an ACO that continues its participation in the
program for a consecutive agreement period, without a break in
participation, because it is either--
(1) An ACO whose participation agreement expired and that
immediately
[[Page 68063]]
enters a new agreement period to continue its participation in the
program; or
(2) An ACO that terminated its current participation agreement
under Sec. 425.220 and immediately enters a new agreement period to
continue its participation in the program.
* * * * *
Sec. 425.100 [Amended]
0
3. Section 425.100 is amended--
0
a. In paragraph (b) by removing the phrase ``under Sec. 425.604, Sec.
425.606, Sec. 425.609 or Sec. 425.610'' and adding in its place the
phrase ``under Sec. 425.604, Sec. 425.605, Sec. 425.606, Sec.
425.609 or Sec. 425.610''; and
0
b. In paragraph (c) by removing the phrase ``under Sec. 425.606, Sec.
425.609 or Sec. 425.610'' and adding in its place the phrase ``under
Sec. 425.605, Sec. 425.606, Sec. 425.609 or Sec. 425.610''.
0
4. Section 425.110 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 425.110 Number of ACO professionals and beneficiaries.
* * * * *
(b) If at any time during the performance year, an ACO's assigned
population falls below 5,000, the ACO may be subject to the actions
described in Sec. Sec. 425.216 and 425.218.
(1) While under a CAP, the ACO remains eligible for shared savings
and liable for shared losses.
(2) If the ACO's assigned population is not at least 5,000 by the
end of the performance year specified by CMS in its request for a CAP,
CMS terminates the participation agreement and the ACO is not eligible
to share in savings for that performance year.
(3) In determining financial performance for an ACO with fewer than
5,000 assigned beneficiaries, the MSR/MLR is calculated as follows:
(i) For ACOs with a variable MSR and MLR (if applicable), the MSR
and MLR (if applicable) are set at a level consistent with the number
of assigned beneficiaries.
(ii) For performance years starting before July 1, 2019, for ACOs
with a fixed MSR/MLR, the MSR/MLR remains fixed at the level consistent
with the choice of MSR and MLR that the ACO made at the start of the
agreement period.
(iii) For performance years starting on July 1, 2019 and in
subsequent years, for ACOs that selected a fixed MSR/MLR at the start
of the agreement period or prior to entering a two-sided model during
their agreement period, the MSR/MLR is calculated as follows:
(A) The MSR/MLR is set at a level based on the number of
beneficiaries assigned to the ACO.
(1) The MSR is the same as the MSR that would apply in a one-sided
model under Sec. 425.604(b) (for Track 2 ACOs) or Sec. 425.605(b)(1)
(for BASIC track and ENHANCED track ACOs) and is based on the number of
assigned beneficiaries.
(2) The MLR is equal to the negative MSR.
(B) The MSR and MLR revert to the fixed level previously selected
by the ACO for any subsequent performance year in the agreement period
in which the ACO's assigned beneficiary population is 5,000 or more.
Sec. 425.118 [Amended]
0
5. Section 425.118 is amended in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) by removing the
phrase ``screening performed under Sec. 425.304(b)'' and adding in its
place the phrase ``screening performed under Sec. 425.305(a)''.
0
6. Section 425.200 is amended--
0
a. By revising the heading for paragraph (b)(3), and revising paragraph
(b)(3)(ii);
0
b. By adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (5);
0
c. By adding paragraph (c)(3);
0
d. By redesignating paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (v) as paragraphs
(e)(1)(ii) through (vi); and
0
e. By adding a new paragraph (e)(1)(i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 425.200 Participation agreement with CMS.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) For 2017 and 2018.* * *
(ii) The term of the participation agreement is 3 years, except for
an ACO whose first agreement period in Track 1 began in 2014 or 2015,
in which case the term of the ACO's initial agreement period under
Track 1 (as described under Sec. 425.604) may be extended, at the
ACO's option, for an additional year for a total of 4 performance years
if the conditions specified in paragraph (e) of this section are met.
(4) For 2019. (i) The start date is January 1, 2019, and the term
of the participation agreement is 3 years for ACOs whose first
agreement period began in 2015 and who deferred renewal of their
participation agreement under paragraph (e) of this section; or
(ii) The start date is July 1, 2019, and the term of the
participation agreement is 5 years and 6 months.
(5) For 2020 and subsequent years. (i) The start date is January 1
of that year; and
(ii) The term of the participation agreement is 5 years.
(c) * * *
(3) For an ACO that entered an agreement period with a start date
of July 1, 2019, the ACO's first performance year of the agreement
period is defined as the 6-month period between July 1, 2019, and
December 31, 2019.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The ACO's first agreement period in the Shared Savings Program
under Track 1 began in 2014 or 2015.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 425.202 is amended by adding introductory text after the
heading of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 425.202 Application procedures.
* * * * *
(b) Condensed application form. For determining eligibility for
agreement periods beginning before July 1, 2019:
* * * * *
0
8. Section 425.204 is amended--
0
a. By revising paragraph (f); and
0
b. In paragraph (g) introductory text by removing the phrase ``under
Sec. 425.602'' and adding in its place the phrase ``under Sec.
425.601, Sec. 425.602, or Sec. 425.603''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 425.204 Content of the application.
* * * * *
(f) Assurance of ability to repay. (1) An ACO must have the ability
to repay all shared losses for which it may be liable under a two-sided
model.
(2) An ACO that will participate in a two-sided model must
establish one or more of the following repayment mechanisms in an
amount and by a deadline specified by CMS in accordance with this
section:
(i) An escrow account with an insured institution.
(ii) A surety bond from a company included on the U.S. Department
of Treasury's List of Certified Companies.
(iii) A line of credit at an insured institution (as evidenced by a
letter of credit that the Medicare program can draw upon).
(3) An ACO that will participate under a two-sided model of the
Shared Savings Program must submit for CMS approval documentation that
it is capable of repaying shared losses that it may incur during its
agreement period, including details supporting the adequacy of the
repayment mechanism.
(i) An ACO participating in Track 2 must demonstrate the adequacy
of its repayment mechanism at such times as requested by CMS.
[[Page 68064]]
(ii) An ACO entering an agreement period in Levels C, D, or E of
the BASIC track or the ENHANCED track must demonstrate the adequacy of
its repayment mechanism prior to the start of its agreement period and
at such other times as requested by CMS.
(iii) An ACO entering an agreement period in Level A or Level B of
the BASIC track must demonstrate the adequacy of its repayment
mechanism prior to the start of any performance year in which it either
elects to participate in, or is automatically transitioned to a two-
sided model, Level C, Level D, or Level E, of the BASIC track, and at
such other times as requested by CMS.
(iv) An ACO that has submitted a request to renew its participation
agreement must submit as part of the renewal request documentation
demonstrating the adequacy of the repayment mechanism that could be
used to repay any shared losses incurred for performance years in the
next agreement period. The repayment mechanism applicable to the new
agreement period may be the same repayment mechanism currently used by
the ACO, provided that the ACO submits documentation establishing that
the amount and duration of the existing repayment mechanism have been
revised to comply with paragraphs (f)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(4) CMS calculates the amount of the repayment mechanism as
follows:
(i) For a Track 2 ACO, the repayment mechanism amount must be equal
to at least 1 percent of the total per capita Medicare Parts A and B
fee-for-service expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries,
based on expenditures used to calculate the benchmark for the
applicable agreement period, as estimated by CMS at the time of
application.
(ii) For a BASIC track or ENHANCED track ACO, the repayment
mechanism amount must be equal to the lesser of the following:
(A) One percent of the total per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-
for-service expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries, based on
expenditures for the most recent calendar year for which 12 months of
data are available.
(B) Two percent of the total Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service
revenue of its ACO participants, based on revenue for the most recent
calendar year for which 12 months of data are available.
(iii) For agreement periods beginning on or after July 1, 2019, CMS
recalculates the ACO's repayment mechanism amount before the second and
each subsequent performance year in the agreement period in accordance
with this section based on the certified ACO participant list for the
relevant performance year.
(A) If the recalculated repayment mechanism amount exceeds the
existing repayment mechanism amount by at least 50 percent or
$1,000,000, whichever is the lesser value, CMS notifies the ACO in
writing that the amount of its repayment mechanism must be increased to
the recalculated repayment mechanism amount.
(B) Within 90 days after receipt of such written notice from CMS,
the ACO must submit for CMS approval documentation that the amount of
its repayment mechanism has been increased to the amount specified by
CMS.
(iv) In the case of an ACO that has submitted a request to renew
its participation agreement and wishes to use its existing repayment
mechanism to establish its ability to repay any shared losses incurred
for performance years in the new agreement period, the amount of the
repayment mechanism must be equal to the greater of the following:
(A) The amount calculated by CMS in accordance with paragraph
(f)(4)(ii) of this section.
(B) The repayment mechanism amount that the ACO was required to
maintain during the last performance year of the participation
agreement it seeks to renew.
(5) After the repayment mechanism has been used to repay any
portion of shared losses owed to CMS, the ACO must replenish the amount
of funds available through the repayment mechanism within 90 days.
(6) The repayment mechanism must be in effect for the duration of
the ACO's participation under a two-sided model plus 12 months
following the conclusion of the agreement period, except as otherwise
specified in this section.
(i) For an ACO that is establishing a new repayment mechanism to
meet this requirement, the repayment mechanism must satisfy one of the
following criteria:
(A) The repayment mechanism covers the entire duration of the ACO's
participation under a two-sided risk model plus 12 months following the
conclusion of the agreement period.
(B) The repayment mechanism covers a term of at least the first two
performance years in which the ACO is participating under a two-sided
model and provides for automatic, annual 12-month extensions of the
repayment mechanism such that the repayment mechanism will eventually
remain in effect for the duration of the agreement period plus 12
months following the conclusion of the agreement period.
(ii) For a renewing ACO that wishes to use its existing repayment
mechanism to establish its ability to repay any shared losses incurred
for performance years in the new agreement period, the existing
repayment mechanism must be amended to meet one of the following
criteria.
(A) The duration of the existing repayment mechanism is extended by
an amount of time that covers the duration of the new agreement period
plus 12 months following the conclusion of the new agreement period.
(B) The duration of the existing repayment mechanism is extended,
if necessary, to cover a term of at least the first two performance
years of the new agreement period and provides for automatic, annual
12-month extensions of the repayment mechanism such that the repayment
mechanism will eventually remain in effect for the duration of the new
agreement period plus 12 months following the conclusion of the new
agreement period.
(iii) CMS may require the ACO to extend the duration of the
repayment mechanism if necessary to ensure that the ACO fully repays
CMS any shared losses for each of the performance years of the
agreement period.
(iv) The repayment mechanism may be terminated at the earliest of
the following conditions:
(A) The ACO has fully repaid CMS any shared losses owed for each of
the performance years of the agreement period under a two-sided model.
(B) CMS has exhausted the amount reserved by the ACO's repayment
mechanism and the arrangement does not need to be maintained to support
the ACO's participation under the Shared Savings Program.
(C) CMS determines that the ACO does not owe any shared losses
under the Shared Savings Program for any of the performance years of
the agreement period.
* * * * *
Sec. 425.220 [Amended]
0
9. Section 425.220 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing the phrase
``60 days'' and adding in its place the phrase ``30 days''.
0
10. Section 425.221 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 425.221 Close-out procedures and payment consequences of early
termination.
* * * * *
[[Page 68065]]
(b) Payment consequences of early termination. (1) Receipt of
shared savings. (i) Except as set forth in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this
section, an ACO that terminates its participation agreement under Sec.
425.220 is eligible to receive shared savings for the performance year
during which the termination becomes effective only if all of the
following conditions are met:
(A) CMS designates or approves an effective date of termination of
the last calendar day of the performance year.
(B) The ACO has completed all close-out procedures by the deadline
specified by CMS.
(C) The ACO has satisfied the criteria for sharing in savings for
the performance year.
(ii) If the participation agreement is terminated at any time by
CMS under Sec. 425.218, the ACO is not eligible to receive shared
savings for the performance year during which the termination becomes
effective.
(2) Payment of shared losses. (i) Except as set forth in paragraph
(b)(3)(i) of this section, for performance years beginning before July
1, 2019, an ACO under a two-sided model is not liable for any shared
losses if its participation agreement is terminated effective before
the last calendar day of a performance year.
(ii) Except as set forth in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section,
for performance years beginning on July 1, 2019 and subsequent
performance years, an ACO under a two-sided model is liable for a pro-
rated share of any shared losses, as calculated in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of this section, if its participation agreement is
terminated effective before the last calendar day of a performance
year.
(A) An ACO under a two-sided model that terminates its
participation agreement under Sec. 425.220 with an effective date of
termination after June 30th of a 12-month performance year is liable
for a pro-rated share of any shared losses determined for the
performance year during which the termination becomes effective.
(B) An ACO under a two-sided model whose participation agreement is
terminated by CMS under Sec. 425.218 is liable for a pro-rated share
of any shared losses determined for the performance year during which
the termination becomes effective.
(iii) The pro-rated share of losses described in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this section is calculated as follows:
(A) In the case of a 12-month performance year, the shared losses
incurred during the 12 months of the performance year are multiplied by
the quotient equal to the number of months of participation in the
program during the performance year, including the month in which the
termination was effective, divided by 12.
(B) In the case of a 6-month performance year beginning July 1,
2019, the shared losses incurred during CY 2019 are multiplied by the
quotient equal to the number of months of participation in the program
during the performance year, including the month in which the
termination was effective, divided by 12.
(3) Exceptions. (i) An ACO starting a 12-month performance year on
January 1, 2019, that terminates its participation agreement with an
effective date of termination of June 30, 2019, and that enters a new
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, is eligible for pro-rated
shared savings or liable for pro-rated shared losses for the 6-month
period from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, as determined in
accordance with Sec. 425.609.
(ii) An ACO under a two-sided model that terminates its
participation agreement under Sec. 425.220 during the 6-month
performance year beginning July 1, 2019, with an effective date of
termination prior to the last calendar day of the performance year is
not liable for shared losses incurred during the performance year.
0
11. Section 425.222 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 425.222 Eligibility to re-enter the program for agreement
periods beginning before July 1, 2019.
(a) For purposes of determining the eligibility of a re-entering
ACO to enter an agreement period beginning before July 1, 2019, the ACO
may participate in the Shared Savings Program again only after the date
on which the term of its original participation agreement would have
expired if the ACO had not been terminated.
(b) For purposes of determining the eligibility of a re-entering
ACO to enter an agreement period beginning before July 1, 2019, an ACO
whose participation agreement was previously terminated must
demonstrate in its application that it has corrected the deficiencies
that caused it to be terminated from the Shared Savings Program and has
processes in place to ensure that it remains in compliance with the
terms of the new participation agreement.
(c) For purposes of determining the eligibility of a re-entering
ACO to enter an agreement period beginning before July 1, 2019, an ACO
whose participation agreement was previously terminated or expired
without having been renewed may re-enter the program for a subsequent
agreement period.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 425.224 is amended--
0
a. By revising the section heading and paragraph (a);
0
b. By revising paragraph (b) heading and paragraphs (b)(1) introductory
text and (b)(1)(ii);
0
c. By removing paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (v);
0
d. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (vi) as paragraphs
(b)(1)(iv) and (v);
0
e. By adding a new paragraph (b)(1)(iii);
0
f. By revising newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (v);
0
g. In paragraph (b)(2) introductory text by removing the phrase
``Renewal requests'' and adding in its place the phrase
``Applications'';
0
h. In paragraph (b)(2)(i) by removing the phrase ``renewal request''
and adding in its place the phrase ``application''; and
0
i. In paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) introductory text by removing the
phrase ``renewal request'' and adding in its place the phrase
``application''.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 425.224 Application procedures for renewing ACOs and re-
entering ACOs.
(a) General rules. A renewing ACO or a re-entering ACO may apply to
enter a new participation agreement with CMS for participation in the
Shared Savings Program.
(1) In order to obtain a determination regarding whether it meets
the requirements to participate in the Shared Savings Program, the ACO
must submit a complete application in the form and manner and by the
deadline specified by CMS.
(2) An ACO executive who has the authority to legally bind the ACO
must certify to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and
belief that the information contained in the application is accurate,
complete, and truthful.
(3) An ACO that seeks to enter a new participation agreement under
the Shared Savings Program and was newly formed after March 23, 2010,
as defined in the Antitrust Policy Statement, must agree that CMS can
share a copy of its application with the Antitrust Agencies.
(4) The ACO must select a participation option in accordance with
the requirements specified in Sec. 425.600. Regardless of the date of
termination or expiration of the participation agreement, a renewing
ACO or re-entering ACO that was previously under a two-sided model, or
a one-sided
[[Page 68066]]
model of the BASIC track's glide path (Level A or Level B), may only
reapply for participation in a two-sided model.
(b) Review of application. (1) CMS determines whether to approve a
renewing ACO's or re-entering ACO's application based on an evaluation
of all of the following factors:
* * * * *
(ii) The ACO's history of noncompliance with the requirements of
the Shared Savings Program, including, but not limited to, the
following factors:
(A)(1) For an ACO that entered into a participation agreement for a
3-year period, we consider whether the ACO failed to meet the quality
performance standard during 1 of the first 2 performance years of the
previous agreement period.
(2) For an ACO that entered into a participation agreement for a
period longer than 3 years, we consider whether the ACO failed to meet
the quality performance standard in either of the following:
(i) In 2 consecutive performance years and was terminated as
specified in Sec. 425.316(c)(2).
(ii) For 2 or more performance years of the previous agreement
period, regardless of whether the years are in consecutive order.
(B) For 2 performance years of the ACO's previous agreement period,
regardless of whether the years are in consecutive order, whether the
average per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service expenditures
for the ACO's assigned beneficiary population exceeded its updated
benchmark by an amount equal to or exceeding either of the following:
(1) The ACO's negative MSR, under a one-sided model.
(2) The ACO's MLR, under a two-sided model.
(C) Whether the ACO failed to repay shared losses in full within 90
days as required under subpart G of this part for any performance year
of the ACO's previous agreement period in a two-sided model.
(D) For an ACO that has participated in a two-sided model
authorized under section 1115A of the Act, whether the ACO failed to
repay shared losses for any performance year as required under the
terms of the ACO's participation agreement for such model.
(iii) Whether the ACO has demonstrated in its application that it
has corrected the deficiencies that caused any noncompliance identified
in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section to occur, and any other factors
that may have caused the ACO to be terminated from the Shared Savings
Program, and has processes in place to ensure that it remains in
compliance with the terms of the new participation agreement.
(iv) Whether the ACO has established that it is in compliance with
the eligibility and other requirements of the Shared Savings Program to
enter a new participation agreement, including the ability to repay
losses by establishing an adequate repayment mechanism under Sec.
425.204(f), if applicable.
(v) The results of a program integrity screening of the ACO, its
ACO participants, and its ACO providers/suppliers (conducted in
accordance with Sec. 425.305(a)).
* * * * *
0
13. Section 425.226 is added to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 425.226 Annual participation elections.
(a) General. This section applies to ACOs in agreement periods
beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years. Before the start of
a performance year, an ACO may make elections related to its
participation in the Shared Savings Program, as specified in this
section, effective at the start of the applicable performance year and
for the remaining years of the agreement period, unless superseded by a
later election in accordance with this section.
(1) Selection of beneficiary assignment methodology. An ACO may
select the assignment methodology that CMS employs for assignment of
beneficiaries under subpart E of this part. An ACO may select either of
the following:
(i) Preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation, as described in Sec. 425.400(a)(2).
(ii) Prospective assignment, as described in Sec. 425.400(a)(3).
(2) Selection of BASIC track level. An ACO participating under the
BASIC track in the glide path may select a higher level of risk and
potential reward, as provided in this section.
(i) An ACO participating under the BASIC track's glide path may
elect to transition to a higher level of risk and potential reward
within the glide path than the level of risk and potential reward that
the ACO would be automatically transitioned to in the applicable year
as specified in Sec. 425.605(d)(1). The automatic transition to higher
levels of risk and potential reward within the BASIC track's glide path
continues to apply to all subsequent years of the agreement period in
the BASIC track.
(ii) An ACO transitioning to a higher level of risk and potential
reward under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must meet all
requirements to participate under the selected level of performance-
based risk, including both of the following:
(A) Establishing an adequate repayment mechanism as specified under
Sec. 425.204(f).
(B) Selecting a MSR/MLR from the options specified under Sec.
425.605(b).
(b) Election procedures. (1) All annual elections must be made in a
form and manner and according to the timeframe established by CMS.
(2) ACO executive who has the authority to legally bind the ACO
must certify the elections described in this section.
0
14. Section 425.304 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 425.304 Beneficiary incentives.
(a) General. (1) Except as set forth in this section, or as
otherwise permitted by law, ACOs, ACO participants, ACO providers/
suppliers, and other individuals or entities performing functions or
services related to ACO activities are prohibited from providing gifts
or other remuneration to beneficiaries as inducements for receiving
items or services from or remaining in, an ACO or with ACO providers/
suppliers in a particular ACO or receiving items or services from ACO
participants or ACO providers/suppliers.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting an
ACO from using shared savings received under this part to cover the
cost of an in-kind item or service or incentive payment provided to a
beneficiary under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
(b) In-kind incentives. ACOs, ACO participants, ACO providers/
suppliers, and other individuals or entities performing functions or
services related to ACO activities may provide in-kind items or
services to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries if all of the
following conditions are satisfied:
(1) There is a reasonable connection between the items and services
and the medical care of the beneficiary.
(2) The items or services are preventive care items or services or
advance a clinical goal for the beneficiary, including adherence to a
treatment regime, adherence to a drug regime, adherence to a follow-up
care plan, or management of a chronic disease or condition.
(3) The in-kind item or service is not a Medicare-covered item or
service for the beneficiary on the date the in-kind item or service is
furnished to the beneficiary.
[[Page 68067]]
(c) Monetary incentives--(1) General. For performance years
beginning on July 1, 2019 and for subsequent performance years, an ACO
that is participating under Track 2, Levels C, D, or E of the BASIC
track, or the ENHANCED track may, in accordance with this section,
establish a beneficiary incentive program to provide monetary incentive
payments to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who receive a
qualifying service.
(2) Application procedures. (i) To establish or reestablish a
beneficiary incentive program, an ACO must submit a complete
application in the form and manner and by a deadline specified by CMS.
(ii) CMS evaluates an ACO's application to determine whether the
ACO satisfies the requirements of this section, and approves or denies
the application.
(iii) If an ACO wishes to make a material change to its CMS-
approved beneficiary incentive program, the ACO must submit a
description of the material change to CMS in a form and manner and by a
deadline specified by CMS. CMS will promptly evaluate the proposed
material change and approve or reject it.
(3) Beneficiary incentive program requirements. An ACO must begin
to operate its approved beneficiary incentive program beginning on July
1, 2019 or January 1 of the relevant performance year.
(i) Duration. (A) Subject to the termination provision at paragraph
(c)(7) of this section, an ACO must operate its approved beneficiary
incentive program for an initial period of 18 months in the case of an
ACO approved to operate a beneficiary incentive program beginning on
July 1, 2019, or 12 months in the case of an ACO approved to operate a
beneficiary incentive program beginning on January 1 of a performance
year.
(B) For each consecutive year that an ACO wishes to operate its
beneficiary incentive program after the CMS-approved initial period, it
must certify all of the following by a deadline specified by CMS:
(1) Its intent to continue to operate the beneficiary incentive
program for the entirety of the relevant performance year.
(2) That the beneficiary incentive program meets all applicable
requirements.
(ii) Beneficiary eligibility. A fee-for-service beneficiary is
eligible to receive an incentive payment under a beneficiary incentive
program if the beneficiary is assigned to the ACO through either of the
following:
(A) Preliminary prospective assignment, as described in Sec.
425.400(a)(2).
(B) Prospective assignment, as described in Sec. 425.400(a)(3).
(iii) Qualifying service. For purposes of this section, a
qualifying service is a primary care service (as defined in Sec.
425.20) with respect to which coinsurance applies under Part B, if the
service is furnished through an ACO by one of the following:
(A) An ACO professional who has a primary care specialty
designation included in the definition of primary care physician under
Sec. 425.20.
(B) An ACO professional who is a physician assistant, nurse
practitioner, or certified nurse specialist.
(C) A FQHC or RHC.
(iv) Incentive payments. (A) An ACO that establishes a beneficiary
incentive program must furnish an incentive payment for each qualifying
service furnished to a beneficiary described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of
this section in accordance with this section.
(B) Each incentive payment made by an ACO under a beneficiary
incentive program must satisfy all of the following conditions:
(1) The incentive payment is in the form of a check, debit card, or
a traceable cash equivalent.
(2) The value of the incentive payment does not exceed $20, as
adjusted annually by the percentage increase in the consumer price
index for all urban consumers (United States city average) for the 12-
month period ending with June of the previous year, rounded to the
nearest whole dollar amount.
(3) The incentive payment is provided by the ACO to the beneficiary
no later than 30 days after a qualifying service is furnished.
(C) An ACO must furnish incentive payments in the same amount to
each eligible Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary without regard to
enrollment of such beneficiary in a Medicare supplemental policy
(described in section 1882(g)(1) of the Act), in a State Medicaid plan
under title XIX or a waiver of such a plan, or in any other health
insurance policy or health benefit plan.
(4) Program integrity requirements--(i) Record retention. An ACO
that establishes a beneficiary incentive program must maintain records
related to the beneficiary incentive program that include the
following:
(A) Identification of each beneficiary that received an incentive
payment, including beneficiary name and HICN or Medicare beneficiary
identifier.
(B) The type and amount of each incentive payment made to each
beneficiary.
(C) The date each beneficiary received a qualifying service, the
corresponding HCPCS code for the qualifying service, and identification
of the ACO provider/supplier that furnished the qualifying service.
(D) The date the ACO provided each incentive payment to each
beneficiary.
(ii) Source of funding. (A) An ACO must not use funds from any
entity or organization outside of the ACO to establish or operate a
beneficiary incentive program.
(B) An ACO must not directly, through insurance, or otherwise, bill
or otherwise shift the cost of establishing or operating a beneficiary
incentive program to a Federal health care program.
(iii) Beneficiary notifications. An ACO or its ACO participants
shall notify assigned beneficiaries of the availability of the
beneficiary incentive program in accordance with Sec. 425.312(b).
(iv) Marketing prohibition. Except for the beneficiary
notifications required under this section, the beneficiary incentive
program is not the subject of marketing materials and activities,
including but not limited to, an advertisement or solicitation to a
beneficiary or any potential patient whose care is paid for in whole or
in part by a Federal health care program (as defined at 42 U.S.C.
1320a-7b(f)).
(5) Effect on program calculations. CMS disregards incentive
payments made by an ACO under paragraph (c) of this section in
calculating an ACO's benchmarks, estimated average per capita Medicare
expenditures, and shared savings and losses.
(6) Income exemptions. Incentive payments made under a beneficiary
incentive program are not considered income or resources or otherwise
taken into account for purposes of either of the following:
(i) Determining eligibility for benefits or assistance (or the
amount or extent of benefits or assistance) under any Federal program
or under any State or local program financed in whole or in part with
Federal funds.
(ii) Any Federal or State laws relating to taxation.
(7) Termination. CMS may require an ACO to terminate its
beneficiary incentive program at any time for either of the following:
(i) Failure to comply with the requirements of this section.
(ii) Any of the grounds for ACO termination set forth in Sec.
425.218(b).
0
15. Section 425.305 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 68068]]
Sec. 425.305 Other program safeguards.
(a) Screening of ACO applicants. (1) ACOs, ACO participants, and
ACO providers/suppliers are reviewed during the Shared Savings Program
application process and periodically thereafter with regard to their
program integrity history, including any history of Medicare program
exclusions or other sanctions and affiliations with individuals or
entities that have a history of program integrity issues.
(2) ACOs, ACO participants, or ACO providers/suppliers whose
screening reveals a history of program integrity issues or affiliations
with individuals or entities that have a history of program integrity
issues may be subject to denial of their Shared Savings Program
applications or the imposition of additional safeguards or assurances
against program integrity risks.
(b) Prohibition on certain required referrals and cost shifting.
ACOs, ACO participants, and ACO providers/suppliers are prohibited from
doing the following:
(1) Conditioning the participation of ACO participants, ACO
providers/suppliers, other individuals or entities performing functions
or services related to ACO activities in the ACO on referrals of
Federal health care program business that the ACO, its ACO
participants, or ACO providers/suppliers or other individuals or
entities performing functions or services related to ACO activities
know or should know is being (or would be) provided to beneficiaries
who are not assigned to the ACO.
(2) Requiring that beneficiaries be referred only to ACO
participants or ACO providers/suppliers within the ACO or to any other
provider or supplier, except that the prohibition does not apply to
referrals made by employees or contractors who are operating within the
scope of their employment or contractual arrangement to the employer or
contracting entity, provided that the employees and contractors remain
free to make referrals without restriction or limitation if the
beneficiary expresses a preference for a different provider,
practitioner, or supplier; the beneficiary's insurer determines the
provider, practitioner, or supplier; or the referral is not in the
beneficiary's best medical interests in the judgment of the referring
party.
0
16. Section 425.308 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(6) and adding
paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 425.308 Public reporting and transparency.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Use of payment rule waivers under Sec. 425.612, if applicable,
or telehealth services under Sec. 425.613, if applicable, or both.
(7) Information about a beneficiary incentive program established
under Sec. 425.304(c), if applicable, including the following, for
each performance year:
(i) Total number of beneficiaries who received an incentive
payment.
(ii) Total number of incentive payments furnished.
(iii) HCPCS codes associated with any qualifying service for which
an incentive payment was furnished.
(iv) Total value of all incentive payments furnished.
(v) Total of each type of incentive payment (for example, check or
debit card) furnished.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 425.310 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 425.310 Marketing requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Comply with Sec. 425.304 regarding beneficiary incentives.
* * * * *
0
18. Section 425.312 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 425.312 Beneficiary notifications.
(a) Notifications to fee-for-service beneficiaries. (1) An ACO
shall ensure that Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries are notified
about all of the following in the manner set forth in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section:
(i) That each ACO participant and its ACO providers/suppliers are
participating in the Shared Savings Program.
(ii) The beneficiary's opportunity to decline claims data sharing
under Sec. 425.708.
(iii) Beginning July 1, 2019, the beneficiary's ability to, and the
process by which, he or she may identify or change identification of
the individual he or she designated for purposes of voluntary alignment
(as described in Sec. 425.402(e)).
(2) Notification of the information specified in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section must be carried out through the following methods:
(i) By an ACO participant posting signs in its facilities and, in
settings in which beneficiaries receive primary care services, making
standardized written notices available upon request.
(ii) During the performance year beginning on July 1, 2019 and each
subsequent performance year, by an ACO or ACO participant providing
each beneficiary with a standardized written notice prior to or at the
first primary care visit of the performance year in the form and manner
specified by CMS.
(b) Beneficiary incentive program notifications. (1) Beginning July
1, 2019, an ACO that operates a beneficiary incentive program under
Sec. 425.304(c) shall ensure that the ACO or its ACO participants
notify assigned beneficiaries of the availability of the beneficiary
incentive program, including a description of the qualifying services
for which an assigned beneficiary is eligible to receive an incentive
payment (as described in Sec. 425.304(c)).
(2) Notification of the information specified in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section must be carried out by an ACO or ACO participant during
each relevant performance year by providing each assigned beneficiary
with a standardized written notice prior to or at the first primary
care visit of the performance year in the form and manner specified by
CMS.
* * * * *
0
19. Section 425.314 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(4) and revising
paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 425.314 Audits and record retention.
(a) * * *
(4) The ACO's operation of a beneficiary incentive program.
(b) * * *
(1) To maintain and give CMS, DHHS, the Comptroller General, the
Federal Government or their designees access to all books, contracts,
records, documents, and other evidence (including data related to
Medicare utilization and costs, quality performance measures, shared
savings distributions, information related to operation of a
beneficiary incentive program, and other financial arrangements related
to ACO activities) sufficient to enable the audit, evaluation,
investigation, and inspection of the ACO's compliance with program
requirements, quality of services performed, right to any shared
savings payment, or obligation to repay losses, ability to bear the
risk of potential losses, and ability to repay any losses to CMS.
* * * * *
Sec. 425.315 [Amended]
0
20. Section 425.315 is amended in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) by removing the
phrase ``Sec. 425.604(f), Sec. 425.606(h), Sec. 425.609(e) or Sec.
425.610(h)'' and adding in its place the phrase ``Sec. 425.604(f),
Sec. 425.605(e), Sec. 425.606(h), Sec. 425.609(e) or Sec.
425.610(h)''.
[[Page 68069]]
0
21. Section 425.316 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 425.316 Monitoring of ACOs.
* * * * *
(d) Monitoring ACO financial performance. (1) For performance years
beginning on July 1, 2019 and subsequent performance years, CMS
determines whether the Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service
expenditures for the ACO's assigned beneficiaries for the performance
year exceed the ACO's updated benchmark by an amount equal to or
exceeding either the ACO's negative MSR under a one-sided model, or the
ACO's MLR under a two-sided model.
(2) If the Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service expenditures for
the ACO's assigned beneficiaries for the performance year exceed the
ACO's updated benchmark as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, CMS may take any of the pre-termination actions set forth in
Sec. 425.216.
(3) If the Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service expenditures for
the ACO's assigned beneficiaries for the performance year exceed the
ACO's updated benchmark as specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section for another performance year of the agreement period, CMS may
immediately or with advance notice terminate the ACO's participation
agreement under Sec. 425.218.
0
22. Section 425.400 is amended--
0
a. By revising the headings for paragraphs (a)(2) and (3);
0
b. In paragraph (a)(3)(i) by removing the phrase ``under Track 3''; and
0
c. By adding paragraph (a)(4).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 425.400 General.
(a) * * *
(2) Preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation. * * *
(3) Prospective assignment. * * *
(4) Assignment methodology applied to ACO. (i) For agreement
periods beginning before July 1, 2019, the applicable assignment
methodology is determined based on track as specified in Sec.
425.600(a).
(A) Preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section applies
to Track 1 and Track 2 ACOs.
(B) Prospective assignment as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section applies to Track 3 ACOs.
(ii) For agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019 and in
subsequent years, an ACO may select the assignment methodology that CMS
employs for assignment of beneficiaries under this subpart.
(A) An ACO may select either of the following:
(1) Preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation, as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) Prospective assignment, as described in paragraph (a)(3) of
this section.
(B) This selection is made prior to the start of each agreement
period, and may be modified prior to the start of each performance year
as specified in Sec. 425.226.
* * * * *
Sec. 425.401 [Amended]
0
23. Section 425.401 is amended in paragraph (b) introductory text by
removing the phrase ``or at the end of CY 2019 as specified in Sec.
425.609(b)(1)(ii)'' and adding in its place the phrase ``or at the end
of CY 2019 as specified in Sec. 425.609(b)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(ii)''.
0
24. Section 425.402 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3)(i) to read
as follows:
Sec. 425.402 Basic assignment methodology.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Offering anything of value to the Medicare beneficiary as an
inducement to influence the Medicare beneficiary's decision to
designate or not to designate an ACO professional as responsible for
coordinating their overall care under paragraph (e) of this section.
Any items or services provided in violation of paragraph (e)(3) of this
section are not considered to have a reasonable connection to the
medical care of the beneficiary, as required under Sec. 425.304(b)(1).
* * * * *
Sec. 425.502 [Amended]
0
25. Section 425.502 is amended in paragraph (e)(4)(v) by removing the
phrase ``in the third year of the previous agreement period'' and
adding in its place the phrase ``in the last year of the previous
agreement period''.
0
26. Section 425.600 is amended--
0
a. In paragraph (a) introductory text by removing the phrase ``For its
initial agreement period, an ACO'' and adding in its place ``An ACO'';
0
b. By revising paragraphs (a)(1), (2) and (3);
0
c. By adding paragraph (a)(4);
0
d. By revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (c); and
0
e. By adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 425.600 Selection of risk model.
(a) * * *
(1) Track 1. For agreement periods beginning before July 1, 2019,
an ACO in Track 1 operates under the one-sided model (as described
under Sec. 425.604) for the agreement period.
(2) Track 2. For agreement periods beginning before July 1, 2019,
an ACO in Track 2 operates under a two-sided model (as described under
Sec. 425.606), sharing both savings and losses with the Medicare
program for the agreement period.
(3) ENHANCED track. An ACO in the ENHANCED track operates under a
two-sided model (as described under Sec. 425.610), sharing both
savings and losses with the Medicare program for the agreement period.
For purposes of this part, all references to the ENHANCED track are
deemed to include Track 3.
(4) BASIC track. For agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019,
and in subsequent years, an ACO in the BASIC track operates under
either a one-sided model or a two-sided model (as described under Sec.
425.605), either sharing savings only or sharing both savings and
losses with the Medicare program, as specified in this paragraph
(a)(4).
(i) Levels of the BASIC track's glide path--(A) Phase-in of levels
of the risk and reward. Under the BASIC track's glide path, the level
of risk and potential reward phases in over the course of the agreement
period in the following order:
(1) Level A. The ACO operates under a one-sided model as described
under Sec. 425.605(d)(1)(i).
(2) Level B. The ACO operates under a one-sided model as described
under Sec. 425.605(d)(1)(ii).
(3) Level C. The ACO operates under a two-sided model as described
under Sec. 425.605(d)(1)(iii).
(4) Level D. The ACO operates under a two-sided model as described
under Sec. 425.605(d)(1)(iv).
(5) Level E. The ACO operates under a two-sided model as described
under Sec. 425.605(d)(1)(v).
(B) Glide path progression. (1) Experience in Track 1. (i) Except
for an ACO that previously participated in Track 1 under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section or a new ACO identified as a re-entering ACO
because more than 50 percent of its ACO participants have recent prior
experience in a Track 1 ACO, an ACO eligible to enter the BASIC track's
glide path as determined
[[Page 68070]]
under paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(2)(i) of this section may elect to
enter its agreement period at any of the levels of risk and potential
reward available under paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(ii) An ACO that previously participated in Track 1 under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section or a new ACO identified as a re-entering ACO
because more than 50 percent of its ACO participants have recent prior
experience in a Track 1 ACO may elect to enter its agreement period at
any of the levels of risk and potential reward available under
paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A)(2) through (5) of this section.
(2) Automatic advancement. Unless the ACO elects to transition to a
higher level of risk and potential reward within the BASIC track's
glide path as provided in Sec. 425.226(a)(2)(i), the ACO is
automatically advanced to the next level of the BASIC track's glide
path at the start of each subsequent performance year of the agreement
period, if a higher level of risk and potential reward is available
under the BASIC track.
(i) Exception for ACO entering the BASIC track's glide path for an
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019. The automatic advancement
does not apply at the start of the second performance year for an ACO
entering the BASIC track's glide path for an agreement period beginning
on July 1, 2019. For performance year 2020, the ACO remains in the same
level of the BASIC track's glide path that it entered for the July 1,
2019 through December 31, 2019 performance year, unless the ACO chooses
to advance more quickly in accordance with Sec. 425.226(a)(2)(i). The
ACO is automatically advanced to the next level of the BASIC track's
glide path at the start of performance year 2021 and all subsequent
performance years of the agreement period.
(ii) Exception for new legal entity identified as a low revenue
ACO. An exception is available for a low revenue ACO that is a new
legal entity and is not identified as a re-entering ACO that enters the
BASIC track's glide path at Level A under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A)(1) of
this section, and is automatically advanced to Level B under paragraph
(a)(4)(i)(A)(2) of this section for performance year 2 (or performance
3 in the case of ACOs entering an agreement period beginning on July 1,
2019). Prior to the automatic advancement of the ACO to Level C under
paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A)(3) of this section, the ACO may elect to remain
in Level B under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A)(2) of this section for
performance year 3 (performance year 4 in the case of ACOs entering an
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019). In the case of an ACO that
elects to remain in Level B for an additional performance year pursuant
to the second sentence of paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii) of this
section, the ACO is automatically advanced to Level E under paragraph
(a)(4)(i)(A)(5) of this section at the start of performance year 4 (or
performance year 5 in the case of ACOs entering an agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019).
(iii) Prior to entering performance-based risk, an ACO must meet
all requirements to participate under performance-based risk, including
establishing an adequate repayment mechanism as specified under Sec.
425.204(f) and selecting a MSR/MLR from the options specified under
Sec. 425.605(b).
(3) If the ACO fails to meet the requirements to participate under
performance-based risk under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(iii) of this
section, the agreement is terminated.
(4) If, in accordance with Sec. 425.226(a)(2)(i), the ACO elects
to transition to a higher level of risk and reward available under
paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A)(3) through (5) of this section, then the
automatic transition to levels of higher risk and reward specified in
paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this section applies to all subsequent
performance years of the agreement period.
(ii) Agreement period under Level E of the BASIC track. If an ACO
enters the BASIC track and is ineligible to participate under the glide
path described in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, as determined
under paragraph (d) of this section, Level E as described in paragraph
(a)(4)(i)(A)(5) of this section applies to all performance years of the
agreement period.
(b) For agreement periods beginning before July 1, 2019, ACOs may
operate under the one-sided model for a maximum of 2 agreement periods.
An ACO may not operate under the one-sided model for a second agreement
period unless the--
* * * * *
(c) For agreement periods beginning before July 1, 2019, an ACO
experiencing a net loss during a previous agreement period may reapply
to participate under the conditions in Sec. 425.202(a), except the ACO
must also identify in its application the cause(s) for the net loss and
specify what safeguards are in place to enable the ACO to potentially
achieve savings in its next agreement period.
(d) For agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in
subsequent years, CMS determines an ACO's eligibility for the Shared
Savings Program participation options specified in paragraph (a) of
this section as follows:
(1) If an ACO is identified as a high revenue ACO, the ACO is
eligible for the participation options indicated in paragraph (a) of
this section as follows:
(i) If the ACO is determined to be inexperienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, the ACO may enter either the BASIC
track's glide path at any of the levels of risk and potential reward
available under paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A)(1) through (5) of this section,
except as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section, or the
ENHANCED track under paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(ii) If the ACO is determined to be experienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives:
(A) The ACO may enter the ENHANCED track under paragraph (a)(3) of
this section except as provided in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this
section.
(B) An ACO in a first or second agreement period beginning in 2016
or 2017 identified as experienced with performance-based risk Medicare
ACO initiatives based on participation in the Track 1+ Model may renew
for a consecutive agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, or
January 1, 2020 (respectively), under either the BASIC track Level E
under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A)(5) of this section, or the ENHANCED track
under paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(2) If an ACO is identified as a low revenue ACO, the ACO is
eligible for the participation options indicated in paragraph (a) of
this section as follows:
(i) If the ACO is determined to be inexperienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, the ACO may enter either the BASIC
track's glide path at any of the levels of risk and potential reward
available under paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A)(1) through (5) of this section,
except as provided in paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section, or the
ENHANCED track under paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(ii) If the ACO is determined to be experienced with performance-
based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, the ACO may enter under either the
BASIC track Level E under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A)(5) of this section,
except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, or the ENHANCED
track under paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(3) Low revenue ACOs may participate under the BASIC track for a
maximum of two agreement periods. A low revenue ACO may only
participate in the BASIC track for a second agreement period if it
satisfies either of the following:
[[Page 68071]]
(i) The ACO is the same legal entity as a current or previous ACO
that previously entered into a participation agreement for
participation in the BASIC track only one time.
(ii) For a new ACO identified as a re-entering ACO, the ACO in
which the majority of the new ACO's participants were participating
previously entered into a participation agreement for participation in
the BASIC track only one time.
(e) CMS monitors low revenue ACOs identified as experienced with
performance-based risk Medicare ACO initiatives, during an agreement
period in the BASIC track, for changes in the revenue of ACO
participants that would cause the ACO to be considered a high revenue
ACO and ineligible for participation in the BASIC track. If the ACO
meets the definition of a high revenue ACO (as specified in Sec.
425.20)--
(1) The ACO is permitted to complete the remainder of its current
performance year under the BASIC track, but is ineligible to continue
participation in the BASIC track after the end of that performance year
if it continues to meet the definition of a high revenue ACO; and
(2) CMS takes compliance action as specified in Sec. Sec. 425.216
and 425.218, up to and including termination of the participation
agreement, to ensure the ACO does not continue in the BASIC track for
subsequent performance years of the agreement period if it continues to
meet the definition of a high revenue ACO.
(f) For agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in
subsequent years, CMS determines the agreement period an ACO is
entering for purposes of applying program requirements that phase-in
over multiple agreement periods, as follows:
(1) An ACO entering an initial agreement period is considered to be
entering a first agreement period in the Shared Savings Program.
(2) A re-entering ACO is considered to be entering a new agreement
period in the Shared Savings Program as follows--
(i) An ACO whose participation agreement expired without having
been renewed re-enters the program under the next consecutive agreement
period in the Shared Savings Program;
(ii) An ACO whose participation agreement was terminated under
Sec. 425.218 or Sec. 425.220 re-enters the program at the start of
the same agreement period in which it was participating at the time of
termination from the Shared Savings Program, beginning with the first
performance year of that agreement period; or
(iii) A new ACO identified as a re-entering ACO enters the program
in an agreement period that is determined based on the prior
participation of the ACO in which the majority of the new ACO's
participants were participating.
(A) If the participation agreement of the ACO used in this
determination expired without having been renewed or was terminated,
the agreement period of the re-entering ACO is determined in accordance
with paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable.
(B) If the ACO used in this determination is currently
participating in the program, the new ACO is considered to be entering
into the same agreement period as this currently participating ACO,
beginning with the first performance year of that agreement period.
(3) A renewing ACO is considered to be entering the next
consecutive agreement period in the Shared Savings Program.
(4) For purposes of this paragraph (f), program requirements that
phase in over multiple agreement periods are as follows:
(i) The quality performance standard as described in Sec.
425.502(a).
(ii) The weight used in calculating the regional adjustment to the
ACO's historical benchmark as described in Sec. 425.601(f).
(iii) The use of equal weights to weight each benchmark year as
specified in Sec. 425.601(e).
0
27. Section 425.601 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 425.601 Establishing, adjusting, and updating the benchmark for
agreement periods beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years.
(a) Computing per capita Medicare Part A and Part B benchmark
expenditures for an ACO's first agreement period. For agreement periods
beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years, in computing an
ACO's historical benchmark for its first agreement period under the
Shared Savings Program, CMS determines the per capita Parts A and B
fee-for-service expenditures for beneficiaries that would have been
assigned to the ACO in any of the 3 most recent years prior to the
start of the agreement period using the ACO participant TINs identified
before the start of the agreement period as required under Sec.
425.118(a) and the beneficiary assignment methodology selected by the
ACO for the first performance year of the agreement period as required
under Sec. 425.226(a)(1). CMS does all of the following:
(1) Calculates the payment amounts included in Parts A and B fee-
for-service claims using a 3-month claims run out with a completion
factor.
(i) This calculation excludes indirect medical education (IME) and
disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments.
(ii) This calculation includes individually beneficiary
identifiable final payments made under a demonstration, pilot or time
limited program.
(2) Makes separate expenditure calculations for each of the
following populations of beneficiaries: ESRD, disabled, aged/dual
eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and aged/non-dual eligible
Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(3) Adjusts expenditures for changes in severity and case mix using
prospective HCC risk scores.
(4) Truncates an assigned beneficiary's total annual Parts A and B
fee-for-service per capita expenditures at the 99th percentile of
national Medicare fee-for-service expenditures for assignable
beneficiaries identified for the 12-month calendar year corresponding
to each benchmark year in order to minimize variation from
catastrophically large claims.
(5) Trends forward expenditures for each benchmark year (BY1 and
BY2) to the third benchmark year (BY3) dollars using a blend of
national and regional growth rates.
(i) To trend forward the benchmark, CMS makes separate calculations
for expenditure categories for each of the following populations of
beneficiaries:
(A) ESRD.
(B) Disabled.
(C) Aged/dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(D) Aged/non-dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(ii) National growth rates are computed using CMS Office of the
Actuary national Medicare expenditure data for each of the years making
up the historical benchmark for assignable beneficiaries identified for
the 12-month calendar year corresponding to each benchmark year.
(iii) Regional growth rates are computed using expenditures for the
ACO's regional service area for each of the years making up the
historical benchmark as follows:
(A) Determine the counties included in the ACO's regional service
area based on the ACO's assigned beneficiary population for the
relevant benchmark year.
[[Page 68072]]
(B) Determine the ACO's regional expenditures as specified under
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(iv) The national and regional growth rates are blended together by
taking a weighted average of the two. The weight applied to the--
(A) National growth rate is calculated as the share of assignable
beneficiaries in the ACO's regional service area for BY3 that are
assigned to the ACO in BY3, as calculated in paragraph (a)(5)(v) of
this section; and
(B) Regional growth rate is equal to 1 minus the weight applied to
the national growth rate.
(v) CMS calculates the share of assignable beneficiaries in the
ACO's regional service area that are assigned to the ACO by doing all
of the following:
(A) Calculating the county-level share of assignable beneficiaries
that are assigned to the ACO for each county in the ACO's regional
service area.
(B) Weighting the county-level shares according to the ACO's
proportion of assigned beneficiaries in the county, determined by the
number of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries residing in the county in
relation to the ACO's total number of assigned beneficiaries.
(C) Aggregating the weighted county-level shares for all counties
in the ACO's regional service area.
(6) Restates BY1 and BY2 trended and risk adjusted expenditures
using BY3 proportions of ESRD, disabled, aged/dual eligible Medicare
and Medicaid beneficiaries and aged/non-dual eligible Medicare and
Medicaid beneficiaries.
(7) Weights each year of the benchmark for an ACO's initial
agreement period using the following percentages:
(i) BY3 at 60 percent.
(ii) BY2 at 30 percent.
(iii) BY1 at 10 percent.
(8) Adjusts the historical benchmark based on the ACO's regional
service area expenditures, making separate calculations for the
following populations of beneficiaries: ESRD, disabled, aged/dual
eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, and aged/non-dual
eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. CMS does all of the
following:
(i) Calculates an average per capita amount of expenditures for the
ACO's regional service area as follows:
(A) Determines the counties included in the ACO's regional service
area based on the ACO's BY3 assigned beneficiary population.
(B) Determines the ACO's regional expenditures as specified under
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section for BY3.
(C) Adjusts for differences in severity and case mix between the
ACO's assigned beneficiary population and the assignable beneficiary
population for the ACO's regional service area identified for the 12-
month calendar year that corresponds to BY3.
(ii) Calculates the adjustment as follows:
(A) Determines the difference between the average per capita amount
of expenditures for the ACO's regional service area as specified under
paragraph (a)(8)(i) of this section and the average per capita amount
of the ACO's historical benchmark determined under paragraphs (a)(1)
through (7) of this section, for each of the following populations of
beneficiaries:
(1) ESRD.
(2) Disabled.
(3) Aged/dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.
(4) Aged/non-dual eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.
(B) Applies a percentage, as determined in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(C) Caps the per capita dollar amount for each Medicare enrollment
type (ESRD, Disabled, Aged/dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries, Aged/non-dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries) calculated under paragraph (a)(8)(ii)(B) of this section
at a dollar amount equal to 5 percent of national per capita
expenditures for Parts A and B services under the original Medicare
fee-for-service program in BY3 for assignable beneficiaries in that
enrollment type identified for the 12-month calendar year corresponding
to BY3 using data from the CMS Office of the Actuary.
(1) For positive adjustments, the per capita dollar amount for a
Medicare enrollment type is capped at 5 percent of the national per
capita expenditure amount for the enrollment type for BY3.
(2) For negative adjustments, the per capita dollar amount for a
Medicare enrollment type is capped at negative 5 percent of the
national per capita expenditure amount for the enrollment type for BY3.
(9) For the second and each subsequent performance year during the
term of the agreement period, the ACO's benchmark is adjusted in
accordance with Sec. 425.118(b) for the addition and removal of ACO
participants or ACO providers/suppliers, for a change to the ACO's
beneficiary assignment methodology selection under Sec. 425.226(a)(1),
or both. To adjust the benchmark, CMS does the following:
(i) Takes into account the expenditures of beneficiaries who would
have been assigned to the ACO under the ACO's most recent beneficiary
assignment methodology selection in any of the 3 most recent years
prior to the start of the agreement period using the most recent
certified ACO participant list for the relevant performance year.
(ii) Redetermines the regional adjustment amount under paragraph
(a)(8) of this section, according to the ACO's assigned beneficiaries
for BY3 resulting from the ACO's most recent certified ACO participant
list, the ACO's beneficiary assignment methodology selection under
Sec. 425.226(a)(1) for the relevant performance year, or both.
(10) The historical benchmark is further adjusted at the time of
reconciliation for a performance year to account for changes in
severity and case mix of the ACO's assigned beneficiary population as
described under Sec. Sec. 425.605(a), 425.609(c), and 425.610(a).
(b) Updating the benchmark. For all agreement periods beginning on
July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years, CMS updates the historical
benchmark annually for each year of the agreement period using a blend
of national and regional growth rates.
(1) To update the benchmark, CMS makes separate calculations for
expenditure categories for each of the following populations of
beneficiaries:
(i) ESRD.
(ii) Disabled.
(iii) Aged/dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(iv) Aged/non-dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(2) National growth rates are computed using CMS Office of the
Actuary national Medicare expenditure data for BY3 and the performance
year for assignable beneficiaries identified for the 12-month calendar
year corresponding to each year.
(3) Regional growth rates are computed using expenditures for the
ACO's regional service area for BY3 and the performance year, computed
as follows:
(i) Determine the counties included in the ACO's regional service
area based on the ACO's assigned beneficiary population for the year.
(ii) Determine the ACO's regional expenditures as specified under
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(4) The national and regional growth rates are blended together by
taking a weighted average of the two. The weight applied to the--
(i) National growth rate is calculated as the share of assignable
beneficiaries in the ACO's regional service area that are assigned to
the ACO for the applicable performance year as specified in paragraph
(a)(5)(v) of this section; and
[[Page 68073]]
(ii) Regional growth rate is equal to 1 minus the weight applied to
the national growth rate.
(c) Calculating county expenditures. For all agreement periods
beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years, CMS does all of the
following to determine risk adjusted county fee-for-service
expenditures for use in calculating the ACO's regional fee-for-service
expenditures:
(1)(i) Determines average county fee-for-service expenditures based
on expenditures for the assignable population of beneficiaries in each
county in the ACO's regional service area, where assignable
beneficiaries are identified for the 12-month calendar year
corresponding to the relevant benchmark or performance year.
(ii) Makes separate expenditure calculations for each of the
following populations of beneficiaries:
(A) ESRD.
(B) Disabled.
(C) Aged/dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(D) Aged/non-dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(2) Calculates assignable beneficiary expenditures using the
payment amounts included in Parts A and B fee-for-service claims with
dates of service in the 12-month calendar year for the relevant
benchmark or performance year, using a 3-month claims run out with a
completion factor. The calculation--
(i) Excludes IME and DSH payments; and
(ii) Considers individually beneficiary identifiable final payments
made under a demonstration, pilot or time limited program.
(3) Truncates a beneficiary's total annual Parts A and B fee-for-
service per capita expenditures at the 99th percentile of national
Medicare fee-for-service expenditures for assignable beneficiaries
identified for the 12-month calendar year that corresponds to the
relevant benchmark or performance year, in order to minimize variation
from catastrophically large claims.
(4) Adjusts fee-for-service expenditures for severity and case mix
of assignable beneficiaries in the county using prospective HCC risk
scores. The calculation is made according to the following populations
of beneficiaries:
(i) ESRD.
(ii) Disabled.
(iii) Aged/dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(iv) Aged/non-dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(d) Calculating regional expenditures. For all agreement periods
beginning on July 1, 2019, and in subsequent years, CMS calculates an
ACO's risk adjusted regional expenditures by--
(1) Weighting the risk-adjusted county-level fee-for-service
expenditures determined under paragraph (c) of this section according
to the ACO's proportion of assigned beneficiaries in the county,
determined by the number of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries in the
applicable population (according to Medicare enrollment type) residing
in the county in relation to the ACO's total number of assigned
beneficiaries in the applicable population (according to Medicare
enrollment type) for the relevant benchmark or performance year for
each of the following populations of beneficiaries:
(i) ESRD.
(ii) Disabled.
(iii) Aged/dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(iv) Aged/non-dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries;
(2) Aggregating the values determined under paragraph (d)(1) of
this section for each population of beneficiaries (according to
Medicare enrollment type) across all counties within the ACO's regional
service area; and
(3) Weighting the aggregate expenditure values determined for each
population of beneficiaries (according to Medicare enrollment type)
under paragraph (d)(2) of this section by a weight reflecting the
proportion of the ACO's overall beneficiary population in the
applicable Medicare enrollment type for the relevant benchmark or
performance year.
(e) Resetting the benchmark. (1) An ACO's benchmark is reset at the
start of each subsequent agreement period.
(2) For second or subsequent agreements periods beginning on July
1, 2019, and in subsequent years, CMS establishes, adjusts, and updates
the rebased historical benchmark in accordance with paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this section with the following modifications:
(i) Rather than weighting each year of the benchmark using the
percentages provided in paragraph (a)(7) of this section, each
benchmark year is weighted equally.
(ii) For a renewing ACO or re-entering ACO whose prior agreement
period benchmark was calculated according to Sec. 425.603(c), to
determine the weight used in the regional adjustment calculation
described in paragraph (f) of this section, CMS considers the agreement
period the ACO is entering into according to Sec. 425.600(f) in
combination with either of the following--
(A) The weight previously applied to calculate the regional
adjustment to the ACO's benchmark under Sec. 425.603(c)(9) in its most
recent prior agreement period; or
(B) For a new ACO identified as a re-entering ACO, CMS considers
the weight previously applied to calculate the regional adjustment to
the benchmark under Sec. 425.603(c)(9) in its most recent prior
agreement period of the ACO in which the majority of the new ACO's
participants were participating previously.
(f) Phase-in of weights used in regional adjustment calculation.
(1) The first time that an ACO's benchmark is adjusted based on the
ACO's regional service area expenditures, CMS calculates the regional
adjustment as follows:
(i) Using 35 percent of the difference between the average per
capita amount of expenditures for the ACO's regional service area and
the average per capita amount of the ACO's initial or rebased
historical benchmark, if the ACO is determined to have lower spending
than the ACO's regional service area.
(ii) Using 15 percent of the difference between the average per
capita amount of expenditures for the ACO's regional service area and
the average per capita amount of the ACO's initial or rebased
historical benchmark, if the ACO is determined to have higher spending
than the ACO's regional service area.
(2) The second time that an ACO's benchmark is adjusted based on
the ACO's regional service area expenditures, CMS calculates the
regional adjustment as follows:
(i) Using 50 percent of the difference between the average per
capita amount of expenditures for the ACO's regional service area and
the average per capita amount of the ACO's rebased historical benchmark
if the ACO is determined to have lower spending than the ACO's regional
service area.
(ii) Using 25 percent of the difference between the average per
capita amount of expenditures for the ACO's regional service area and
the average per capita amount of the ACO's rebased historical benchmark
if the ACO is determined to have higher spending than the ACO's
regional service area.
(3) The third time that an ACO's benchmark is adjusted based on the
ACO's regional service area expenditures, CMS calculates the regional
adjustment as follows:
(i) Using 50 percent of the difference between the average per
capita amount of expenditures for the ACO's regional service area and
the average per capita amount of the ACO's rebased historical benchmark
if the ACO is determined to
[[Page 68074]]
have lower spending than the ACO's regional service area.
(ii) Using 35 percent of the difference between the average per
capita amount of expenditures for the ACO's regional service area and
the average per capita amount of the ACO's rebased historical benchmark
if the ACO is determined to have higher spending than the ACO's
regional service area.
(4) The fourth or subsequent time that an ACO's benchmark is
adjusted based on the ACO's regional service area expenditures, CMS
calculates the regional adjustment to the historical benchmark using 50
percent of the difference between the average per capita amount of
expenditures for the ACO's regional service area and the average per
capita amount of the ACO's rebased historical benchmark.
(5) To determine if an ACO has lower or higher spending compared to
the ACO's regional service area, CMS does the following:
(i) Multiplies the difference between the average per capita amount
of expenditures for the ACO's regional service area and the average per
capita amount of the ACO's historical benchmark for each population of
beneficiaries (ESRD, Disabled, Aged/dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries, Aged/non-dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries) as calculated under either paragraph (a)(8)(ii)(A) or
(e) of this section by the applicable proportion of the ACO's assigned
beneficiary population (ESRD, Disabled, Aged/dual eligible Medicare and
Medicaid beneficiaries, Aged/non-dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries) for BY3 of the historical benchmark.
(ii) Sums the amounts determined in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this
section across the populations of beneficiaries (ESRD, Disabled, Aged/
dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, Aged/non-dual
eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries).
(iii) If the resulting sum is a net positive value, the ACO is
considered to have lower spending compared to the ACO's regional
service area. If the resulting sum is a net negative value, the ACO is
considered to have higher spending compared to the ACO's regional
service area.
(iv) If CMS adjusts the ACO's benchmark for the addition or removal
of ACO participants or ACO providers/suppliers during the term of the
agreement period or a change to the ACO's beneficiary assignment
methodology selection as specified in paragraph (a)(9) of this section,
CMS redetermines whether the ACO is considered to have lower spending
or higher spending compared to the ACO's regional service area for
purposes of determining the percentage in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of
this section used in calculating the adjustment under either paragraph
(a)(8) or (e) of this section.
(g) July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 performance year. In
determining performance for the July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019
performance year described in Sec. 425.609(c), CMS does all of the
following:
(1) When adjusting the benchmark using the methodology set forth in
paragraph (a)(10) of this section and Sec. 425.609(c), CMS adjusts for
severity and case mix between BY3 and CY 2019.
(2) When updating the benchmark using the methodology set forth in
paragraph (b) of this section and Sec. 425.609(c), CMS updates the
benchmark based on growth between BY3 and CY 2019.
0
28. Section 425.602 is amended--
0
a. By revising the section heading and paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B) by removing the phrase ``For agreement
periods beginning in 2018 and subsequent years'' and adding in its
place the phrase ``For agreement periods beginning in 2018''; and
0
c. In paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (a)(5)(ii) by removing the phrase ``For
agreement periods beginning in 2017 and subsequent years'' and adding
in its place the phrase ``For agreement periods beginning in 2017 and
2018''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 425.602 Establishing, adjusting, and updating the benchmark for
an ACO's first agreement period beginning on or before January 1, 2018.
(a) Computing per capita Medicare Part A and Part B benchmark
expenditures. For agreement periods beginning on or before January 1,
2018, in computing an ACO's fixed historical benchmark that is adjusted
for historical growth and beneficiary characteristics, including health
status, CMS determines the per capita Parts A and B fee-for-service
expenditures for beneficiaries that would have been assigned to the ACO
in any of the 3 most recent years prior to the agreement period using
the ACO participants' TINs identified at the start of the agreement
period. CMS does all of the following:
* * * * *
0
29. Section 425.603 is amended--
0
a. By revising the section heading;
0
b. In paragraph (c) introductory text by removing the phrase ``For
second or subsequent agreement periods beginning in 2017 and subsequent
years'' and adding in its place the phrase ``For second or subsequent
agreement periods beginning in 2017, 2018 and on January 1, 2019'';
0
c. In paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) by removing the phrase ``For agreement
periods beginning in 2018 and subsequent years'' and adding in its
place the phrase ``For agreement periods beginning in 2018 and on
January 1, 2019'';
0
d. In paragraphs (d) introductory text and (e) introductory text by
removing the phrase ``For second or subsequent agreement periods
beginning in 2017 and subsequent years'' and adding in its place the
phrase ``For second or subsequent agreement periods beginning in 2017,
2018 and on January 1, 2019'';
0
e. In paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B) by removing the phrase ``For agreement
periods beginning in 2018 and subsequent years'' and adding in its
place the phrase ``For agreement periods beginning in 2018 and on
January 1, 2019''; and
0
f. In paragraph (f) introductory text by removing the phrase ``For
second or subsequent agreement periods beginning in 2017 and subsequent
years'' and adding in its place the phrase ``For second or subsequent
agreement periods beginning in 2017, 2018, and on January 1, 2019''.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 425.603 Resetting, adjusting, and updating the benchmark for a
subsequent agreement period beginning on or before January 1, 2019.
* * * * *
0
30. Section 425.604 is amended--
0
a. In paragraph (a) introductory text by removing the phrase ``under
Sec. 425.602'' and adding in its place the phrase ``under Sec.
425.602 or Sec. 425.603'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(3) introductory text by removing the phrase
``described in Sec. 425.602(a)'' and adding in its place the phrase
``described in Sec. 425.602(a) or Sec. 425.603(c)''; and
0
c. In paragraph (b) by revising the table.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 425.604 Calculation of savings under the one-sided model.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
[[Page 68075]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.023
* * * * *
0
31. Section 425.605 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 425.605 Calculation of shared savings and losses under the
BASIC track.
(a) General rules. For each performance year, CMS determines
whether the estimated average per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-
for-service expenditures for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries
assigned to the ACO are above or below the updated benchmark determined
under Sec. 425.601. In order to qualify for a shared savings payment
under the BASIC track, or to be responsible for sharing losses with
CMS, an ACO's average per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service
expenditures for its assigned beneficiary population for the
performance year must be below or above the updated benchmark,
respectively, by at least the minimum savings or loss rate under
paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) CMS uses an ACO's prospective HCC risk score to adjust the
benchmark for changes in severity and case mix in the assigned
beneficiary population between BY3 and the performance year.
(i) Positive adjustments in prospective HCC risk scores are subject
to a cap of 3 percent.
(ii) This cap is the maximum increase in risk scores for each
agreement period, such that any positive adjustment between BY3 and any
performance year in the agreement period cannot be larger than 3
percent.
(2) In risk adjusting the benchmark as described in Sec.
425.601(a)(10), CMS makes separate adjustments for each of the
following populations of beneficiaries:
(i) ESRD.
(ii) Disabled.
(iii) Aged/dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(iv) Aged/non-dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(3) To minimize variation from catastrophically large claims, CMS
truncates an assigned beneficiary's total annual Medicare Parts A and B
fee-for-service per capita expenditures at the 99th percentile of
national Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service expenditures as
determined for the applicable performance year for assignable
beneficiaries identified for the 12-month calendar year corresponding
to the performance year.
(4) CMS uses a 3-month claims run out with a completion factor to
calculate an ACO's per capita expenditures for each performance year.
(5) Calculations of the ACO's expenditures include the payment
amounts included in Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service claims.
(i) These calculations exclude indirect medical education (IME) and
disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments.
(ii) These calculations take into consideration individually
beneficiary identifiable final payments made under a demonstration,
pilot or time limited program.
(6) In order to qualify for a shared savings payment, the ACO's
average per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service expenditures
for the performance year must be below the applicable updated benchmark
by at least the minimum savings rate established for the ACO under
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Minimum savings or loss rate. (1) For ACOs under a one-sided
model of the BASIC track's glide path, as specified under paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, CMS uses a sliding scale, based on
the number of beneficiaries assigned to the ACO under subpart E of this
part, to establish the MSR for the ACO as follows:
[[Page 68076]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE18.024
(2) Prior to entering a two-sided model of the BASIC track, the ACO
must select the MSR/MLR. For an ACO making this selection as part of an
application for, or renewal of, participation in a two-sided model of
the BASIC track, the selection applies for the duration of the
agreement period under the BASIC track. For an ACO making this
selection during an agreement period, as part of the application cycle
prior to entering a two-sided model of the BASIC track, the selection
applies for the remaining duration of the applicable agreement period
under the BASIC track.
(i) The ACO must choose from the following options for establishing
the MSR/MLR:
(A) Zero percent MSR/MLR.
(B) Symmetrical MSR/MLR in a 0.5 percent increment between 0.5 and
2.0 percent.
(C) Symmetrical MSR/MLR that varies, based on the number of
beneficiaries assigned to the ACO under subpart E of this part. The MSR
is the same as the MSR that would apply under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section for an ACO under a one-sided model of the BASIC track's glide
path, and is based on the number of assigned beneficiaries. The MLR
under the BASIC track is equal to the negative MSR.
(ii) The ACO selects its MSR/MLR as part of one the following:
(A) Application for, or renewal of, program participation in a two-
sided model of the BASIC track.
(B) Election to participate in a two-sided model of the BASIC track
during an agreement period under Sec. 425.226.
(C) Automatic transition from Level B to Level C of the BASIC
track's glide path under Sec. 425.600(a)(4)(i).
(D) Automatic transition from Level B to Level E of the BASIC
track's glide path under Sec. 425.600(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii).
(3) To qualify for shared savings under the BASIC track, an ACO's
average per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service expenditures
for its assigned beneficiary population for the performance year must
be below its updated benchmark costs for the year by at least the MSR
established for the ACO.
(4) To be responsible for sharing losses with the Medicare program,
an ACO's average per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service
expenditures for its assigned beneficiary population for the
performance year must be above its updated benchmark costs for the year
by at least the MLR established for the ACO.
(c) Qualification for shared savings payment. To qualify for shared
savings, an ACO must meet the minimum savings rate requirement
established under paragraph (b) of this section, meet the minimum
quality performance standards established under Sec. 425.502, and
otherwise maintain its eligibility to participate in the Shared Savings
Program under this part.
(d) Levels of risk and potential reward. (1) The following levels
of risk and potential reward apply to an ACO in the BASIC track, as
permitted under Sec. 425.600(d).
(i) Level A (one-sided model)--(A) Final sharing rate. An ACO that
meets all the requirements for receiving shared savings payments under
the BASIC track, Level A, receives a shared savings payment of up to 40
percent of all the savings under the updated benchmark, as determined
on the basis of its quality performance under Sec. 425.502 (up to the
performance payment limit described in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this
section).
(B) Performance payment. (1) If an ACO qualifies for savings by
meeting or exceeding the MSR, the final sharing rate specified in
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section applies to an ACO's savings on a
first dollar basis.
(2) The amount of shared savings an eligible ACO receives under the
BASIC track, Level A, may not exceed 10 percent of its updated
benchmark.
(ii) Level B (one-sided model)--(A) Final sharing rate. An ACO that
meets all the requirements for receiving shared savings payments under
the BASIC track, Level B, receives a shared savings payment of up to 40
percent of all the savings under the updated benchmark, as determined
on the basis of its quality performance under Sec. 425.502 (up to the
performance payment limit described in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(B) of this
section).
(B) Performance payment. (1) If an ACO qualifies for savings by
meeting or exceeding the MSR, the final sharing rate specified in
paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section applies to an ACO's savings on
a first dollar basis.
(2) The amount of shared savings an eligible ACO receives under the
BASIC track, Level B, may not exceed 10 percent of its updated
benchmark.
(iii) Level C (two-sided model)--(A) Final sharing rate. An ACO
that meets all the requirements for receiving shared savings payments
under the BASIC track, Level C, receives a shared savings payment of up
to 50 percent of all the savings under the updated benchmark,
[[Page 68077]]
as determined on the basis of its quality performance under Sec.
425.502 (up to the performance payment limit described in paragraph
(d)(1)(iii)(B) of this section).
(B) Performance payment. (1) If an ACO qualifies for savings by
meeting or exceeding the MSR, the final sharing rate specified in
paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(A) of this section applies to an ACO's savings on
a first dollar basis.
(2) The amount of shared savings an eligible ACO receives under the
BASIC track, Level C may not exceed 10 percent of its updated
benchmark.
(C) Shared loss rate. For an ACO that is required to share losses
with the Medicare program for expenditures over the updated benchmark,
the amount of shared losses is determined based on a fixed 30 percent
loss sharing rate.
(D) Loss recoupment limit. (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(d)(1)(iii)(D)(2) of this section, the amount of shared losses for
which an eligible ACO is liable may not exceed 2 percent of total
Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service revenue of the ACO participants
in the ACO.
(2) Instead of the revenue-based loss recoupment limit determined
under paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(D)(1) of this section, the loss recoupment
limit for the ACO is 1 percent of the ACO's updated benchmark as
determined under Sec. 425.601, if the amount determined under
paragraph (d)(1)(iii)(D)(1) of this section exceeds the amount that is
1 percent of the ACO's updated benchmark as determined under Sec.
425.601.
(iv) Level D (two-sided model)--(A) Final sharing rate. An ACO that
meets all the requirements for receiving shared savings payments under
the BASIC track, Level D, receives a shared savings payment of up to 50
percent of all the savings under the updated benchmark, as determined
on the basis of its quality performance under Sec. 425.502 (up to the
performance payment limit described in paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(B) of this
section).
(B) Performance payment. (1) If an ACO qualifies for savings by
meeting or exceeding the MSR, the final sharing rate specified in
paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(A) of this section applies to an ACO's savings on
a first dollar basis.
(2) The amount of shared savings an eligible ACO receives under the
BASIC track, Level D, may not exceed 10 percent of its updated
benchmark.
(C) Shared loss rate. For an ACO that is required to share losses
with the Medicare program for expenditures over the updated benchmark,
the amount of shared losses is determined based on a fixed 30 percent
loss sharing rate.
(D) Loss recoupment limit. (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(d)(1)(iv)(D)(2) of this section, the amount of shared losses for which
an eligible ACO is liable may not exceed 4 percent of total Medicare
Parts A and B fee-for-service revenue of the ACO participants in the
ACO.
(2) Instead of the revenue-based loss recoupment limit determined
under paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(D)(1) of this section, the loss recoupment
limit for the ACO is 2 percent of the ACO's updated benchmark as
determined under Sec. 425.601, if the amount determined under
paragraph (d)(1)(iv)(D)(1) of this section exceeds the amount that is 2
percent of the ACO's updated benchmark as determined under Sec.
425.601.
(v) Level E (two-sided model)--(A) Final sharing rate. An ACO that
meets all the requirements for receiving shared savings payments under
the BASIC track, Level E, receives a shared savings payment of up to 50
percent of all the savings under the updated benchmark, as determined
on the basis of its quality performance under Sec. 425.502 (up to the
performance payment limit described in paragraph (d)(1)(v)(B) of this
section).
(B) Performance payment. (1) If an ACO qualifies for savings by
meeting or exceeding the MSR, the final sharing rate specified in
paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) of this section applies to an ACO's savings on a
first dollar basis.
(2) The amount of shared savings an eligible ACO receives under the
BASIC track, Level E, may not exceed 10 percent of its updated
benchmark.
(C) Shared loss rate. For an ACO that is required to share losses
with the Medicare program for expenditures over the updated benchmark,
the amount of shared losses is determined based on a fixed 30 percent
loss sharing rate.
(D) Loss recoupment limit. (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(d)(1)(v)(D)(2) of this section, the amount of shared losses for which
an eligible ACO is liable may not exceed the percentage, as specified
in Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i)(A) of this chapter, of total Medicare Parts
A and B fee-for-service revenue of the ACO participants in the ACO.
(2) Instead of the revenue-based loss recoupment limit determined
under paragraph (d)(1)(v)(D)(1) of this section, the loss recoupment
limit for the ACO is 1 percentage point higher than the percentage, as
specified in Sec. 414.1415(c)(3)(i)(B) of this chapter, based on the
ACO's updated benchmark as determined under Sec. 425.601, if the
amount determined under paragraph (d)(1)(v)(D)(1) of this section
exceeds this percentage of the ACO's updated benchmark as determined
under Sec. 425.601.
(2) Level E risk and reward as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(v) of
this section applies to an ACO eligible to enter the BASIC track that
is determined to be experienced with performance-based risk Medicare
ACO initiatives as specified under Sec. 425.600(d).
(e) Notification of savings and losses. (1) CMS notifies an ACO in
writing regarding whether the ACO qualifies for a shared savings
payment, and if so, the amount of the payment due.
(2) CMS provides written notification to an ACO of the amount of
shared losses, if any, that it must repay to the program.
(3) If an ACO has shared losses, the ACO must make payment in full
to CMS within 90 days of receipt of notification.
(f) Extreme and uncontrollable circumstances. The following
adjustment is made in calculating the amount of shared losses, after
the application of the shared loss rate and the loss recoupment limit.
(1) CMS determines the percentage of the ACO's performance year
assigned beneficiary population affected by an extreme and
uncontrollable circumstance.
(2) CMS reduces the amount of the ACO's shared losses by an amount
determined by multiplying the shared losses by the percentage of the
total months in the performance year affected by an extreme and
uncontrollable circumstance, and the percentage of the ACO's assigned
beneficiaries who reside in an area affected by an extreme and
uncontrollable circumstance.
(i) For an ACO that is liable for a pro-rated share of losses under
Sec. 425.221(b)(2)(ii), the amount of shared losses determined for the
performance year during which the termination becomes effective is
adjusted according to this paragraph (f)(2).
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) CMS applies determinations made under the Quality Payment
Program with respect to--
(i) Whether an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance has
occurred; and
(ii) The affected areas.
(4) CMS has sole discretion to determine the time period during
which an extreme and uncontrollable circumstance occurred and the
percentage of the ACO's assigned beneficiaries residing in the affected
areas.
(g) July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 performance year. Shared
savings or shared losses for the July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019
performance year are calculated as described in Sec. 425.609.
0
32. Section 425.606 is amended--
[[Page 68078]]
0
a. In paragraph (a) introductory text by removing the phrase ``under
Sec. 425.602'' and adding in its place the phrase ``under Sec.
425.602 or Sec. 425.603'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(3) introductory text by removing the phrase
``described in Sec. 425.602(a)'' and adding in its place the phrase
``described in Sec. 425.602(a) or Sec. 425.603(c)'';
0
c. In paragraph (g) introductory text by removing the phrase ``under
Sec. 425.602'' and adding in its place the phrase ``under Sec.
425.602 or Sec. 425.603''; and
0
d. By adding paragraph (i)(2)(i), and reserved paragraph (i)(2)(ii).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 425.606 Calculation of shared savings and losses under Track 2.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For an ACO that is liable for a pro-rated share of losses under
Sec. 425.221(b)(2)(ii) or (b)(3)(i), the amount of shared losses
determined for the performance year during which the termination
becomes effective is adjusted according to this paragraph (i)(2).
(ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
33. Section 425.609 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (b) introductory text
and (b)(2);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1), and (e).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 425.609 Determining performance for 6-month performance years
during CY 2019.
* * * * *
(b) January 2019 through June 2019. For ACOs participating in a 6-
month performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019,
under Sec. 425.200(b)(2)(ii)(B) and for ACOs eligible for pro-rated
shared savings or liable for pro-rated shared losses in accordance with
Sec. 425.221(b)(3)(i) for the performance period from January 1, 2019,
through June 30, 2019, CMS reconciles the ACO for the period from
January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, after the conclusion of CY
2019, based on the 12-month calendar year and pro-rates shared savings
or shared losses to reflect the ACO's participation from January 1,
2019, through June 30, 2019. CMS does all of the following to determine
financial and quality performance:
* * * * *
(2) Uses the ACO's quality performance for the 2019 reporting
period to determine the ACO's quality performance score as specified in
Sec. 425.502.
(i) The ACO participant list finalized for the first performance
year of the ACO's agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019, is used
to determine the quality reporting samples for the 2019 reporting year
for the following ACOs:
(A) An ACO that extends its participation agreement for a 6-month
performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, under
Sec. 425.200(b)(2)(ii)(B), and enters a new agreement period beginning
on July 1, 2019.
(B) An ACO that participates in the program for the first 6 months
of a 12-month performance year during 2019 and is eligible for pro-
rated shared savings or liable for pro-rated shared losses in
accordance with Sec. 425.221(b)(3)(i).
(ii) The ACO's latest certified ACO participant list is used to
determine the quality reporting samples for the 2019 reporting year for
an ACO that extends its participation agreement for the 6-month
performance year from January 1, 2019, through June 30, 2019, under
Sec. 425.200(b)(2)(ii)(B), and does not enter a new agreement period
beginning on July 1, 2019.
* * * * *
(c) July 2019 through December 2019. For ACOs entering an agreement
period beginning on July 1, 2019, the ACO's first performance year is
from July 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, as specified in Sec.
425.200(c)(3). CMS reconciles the ACO for the period from July 1, 2019,
through December 31, 2019, after the conclusion of CY 2019, based on
the 12-month calendar year and pro-rates shared savings or shared
losses to reflect the ACO's participation from July 1, 2019, through
December 31, 2019. CMS does all of the following to determine financial
and quality performance:
(1) Uses the ACO participant list in effect for the performance
year beginning on July 1, 2019, to determine beneficiary assignment,
using claims for the entire calendar year, consistent with the
methodology the ACO selected at the start of its agreement period under
Sec. 425.400(a)(4)(ii).
(i) For ACOs under preliminary prospective assignment with
retrospective reconciliation the assignment window is CY 2019.
(ii) For ACOs under prospective assignment--
(A) The assignment window is the same as the assignment window that
applies under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section for ACOs under
prospective assignment for the 6-month performance year from January 1,
2019, through June 30, 2019; and
(B) Beneficiaries remain prospectively assigned to the ACO at the
end of CY 2019 if they do not meet any of the exclusion criteria under
Sec. 425.401(b) during the calendar year.
(2) Uses the ACO's quality performance for the 2019 reporting
period to determine the ACO's quality performance score as specified in
Sec. 425.502. The ACO participant list finalized for the first
performance year of the ACO's agreement period beginning on July 1,
2019, is used to determine the quality reporting samples for the 2019
reporting year for all ACOs.
(3) Uses the methodology for calculating shared savings or shared
loses applicable to the ACO for its first performance year under its
agreement period beginning on July 1, 2019.
(i) The ACO's historical benchmark is determined according to Sec.
425.601 except as follows:
(A) The benchmark is adjusted for changes in severity and case mix
between BY3 and CY 2019 based on growth in prospective HCC risk scores,
subject to a cap of positive 3 percent as described under Sec.
425.605(a)(1) or Sec. 425.610(a)(2).
(B) The benchmark is updated to CY 2019 according to the
methodology described under Sec. 425.601(b).
(ii) The ACO's financial performance is determined based on the
track the ACO is participating under during the performance year
starting on July 1, 2019 (Sec. 425.605 (BASIC track) or Sec. 425.610
(ENHANCED track)), unless otherwise specified. In determining ACO
financial performance, CMS does all of the following:
(A) Average per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service
expenditures for CY 2019 are calculated for the ACO's performance year
assigned beneficiary population identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
(B) Expenditures calculated in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) of this
section are compared to the ACO's updated benchmark determined
according to paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section.
(C)(1) The ACO's performance year assigned beneficiary population
identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is used to determine the
MSR for ACOs in BASIC track Level A or Level B, and the variable MSR/
MLR for ACOs in a two-sided model that selected this option at the
start of their agreement period. In the event a two-sided model ACO
selected a fixed MSR/MLR at the start of its agreement period, and the
ACO's performance year assigned population identified in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section is below 5,000 beneficiaries, the MSR/MLR is
determined based on the number of
[[Page 68079]]
assigned beneficiaries as specified in Sec. 425.110(b)(3)(iii).
(2) To qualify for shared savings an ACO must do all of the
following:
(i) Have average per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service
expenditures for its assigned beneficiary population for CY 2019 below
its updated benchmark costs for the year by at least the MSR
established for the ACO based on the track the ACO is participating
under during the performance year starting on July 1, 2019 (Sec.
425.605 or Sec. 425.610) and paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(C)(1) of this
section.
(ii) Meet the minimum quality performance standards established
under Sec. 425.502 and according to paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(iii) Otherwise maintain its eligibility to participate in the
Shared Savings Program under this part.
(3) To be responsible for sharing losses with the Medicare program,
an ACO's average per capita Medicare Parts A and B fee-for-service
expenditures for its assigned beneficiary population for CY 2019 must
be above its updated benchmark costs for the year by at least the MLR
established for the ACO based on the track the ACO is participating
under during the performance year starting on July 1, 2019 (Sec.
425.605 or Sec. 425.610) and paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(C)(1) of this
section.
(D) For an ACO that meets all the requirements to receive a shared
savings payment under paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(C)(2) of this section--
(1) The final sharing rate, determined based on the track the ACO
is participating under during the performance year starting on July 1,
2019 (Sec. 425.605 or Sec. 425.610), is applied to all savings under
the updated benchmark specified under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this
section, not to exceed the performance payment limit for the ACO based
on its track; and
(2) After applying the applicable performance payment limit, CMS
pro-rates any shared savings amount determined under paragraph
(c)(3)(ii)(D)(1) of this section by multiplying the amount by one-half,
which represents the fraction of the calendar year covered by the July
1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 performance year.
(E) For an ACO responsible for shared losses under paragraph
(c)(3)(ii)(C)(3) of this section--
(1) The shared loss rate, determined based on the track the ACO is
participating under during the performance year starting on July 1,
2019 (Sec. 425.605 or Sec. 425.610), is applied to all losses under
the updated benchmark specified under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this
section, not to exceed the loss recoupment limit for the ACO based on
its track; and
(2) After applying the applicable loss recoupment limit, CMS pro-
rates any shared losses amount determined under paragraph
(c)(3)(ii)(E)(1) of this section by multiplying the amount by one-half,
which represents the fraction of the calendar year covered by the July
1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 performance year.
(d) * * *
(1) In calculating the amount of shared losses owed, CMS makes
adjustments to the amount determined in paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(E)(1) or
(c)(3)(ii)(E)(1) of this section, as specified in Sec. 425.605(f),
Sec. 425.606(i), or Sec. 425.610(i), as applicable; and
* * * * *
(e) Notification of savings and losses. (1) CMS notifies the ACO of
shared savings or shared losses separately for the January 1, 2019
through June 30, 2019 performance year (or performance period) and the
July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 performance year, consistent
with the notification requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 425.604(f),
425.605(e), 425.606(h), and 425.610(h), as applicable:
(i) CMS notifies an ACO in writing regarding whether the ACO
qualifies for a shared savings payment, and if so, the amount of the
payment due.
(ii) CMS provides written notification to an ACO of the amount of
shared losses, if any, that it must repay to the program.
(iii) If an ACO has shared losses, the ACO must make payment in
full to CMS within 90 days of receipt of notification.
(2) If an ACO is reconciled for both the January 1, 2019 through
June 30, 2019 performance year (or performance period) and the July 1,
2019 through December 31, 2019 performance year, CMS issues a separate
notice of shared savings or shared losses for each performance year (or
performance period), and if the ACO has shared savings for one
performance year (or performance period) and shared losses for the
other performance year (or performance period), CMS reduces the amount
of shared savings by the amount of shared losses.
(i) If any amount of shared savings remains after completely
repaying the amount of shared losses owed, the ACO is eligible to
receive payment for the remainder of the shared savings.
(ii) If the amount of shared losses owed exceeds the amount of
shared savings earned, the ACO is accountable for payment of the
remaining balance of shared losses in full.
0
34. Section 425.610 is amended--
0
a. By revising the section heading;
0
b. In paragraph (a) introductory text by removing the phrase ``under
Sec. 425.602'' and adding in its place the phrase ``under Sec.
425.601, Sec. 425.602 or Sec. 425.603'' and by removing the phrase
``Track 3'' and adding in its place the phrase ``the ENHANCED track'';
0
c. By revising paragraph (a)(1) through (3);
0
d. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii) by removing the phrase ``Track 3'' each
time it appears and adding in its place the phrase ``the ENHANCED
track'' and by removing the phrase ``Sec. 425.604(b)'' and adding in
its place the phrase ``either Sec. 425.604(b) (for ACOs entering an
agreement period on or before January 1, 2019) or Sec. 425.605(b)(1)
(for ACOs entering an agreement period on July 1, 2019, and in
subsequent years)'';
0
e. In paragraphs (b)(2), (d), (e)(2) by removing the phrase ``Track 3''
and adding in its place the phrase ``the ENHANCED track'';
0
f. In paragraph (g) by removing the phrase ``under Sec. 425.602'' and
adding in its place the phrase ``under Sec. 425.601, Sec. 425.602 or
Sec. 425.603'';
0
g. By adding paragraph (i)(2)(i), and reserved paragraph (i)(2)(ii);
and
0
h. By adding paragraph (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 425.610 Calculation of shared savings and losses under the
ENHANCED track.
(a) * * *
(1) Risk adjustment for ACOs in agreement periods beginning on or
before January 1, 2019. CMS does the following to adjust the benchmark
each performance year:
(i) Newly assigned beneficiaries. CMS uses an ACO's prospective HCC
risk score to adjust the benchmark for changes in severity and case mix
in this population.
(ii) Continuously assigned beneficiaries. (A) CMS uses demographic
factors to adjust the benchmark for changes in the continuously
assigned beneficiary population.
(B) If the prospective HCC risk score is lower in the performance
year for this population, CMS adjusts the benchmark for changes in
severity and case mix for this population using this lower prospective
HCC risk score.
(2) Risk adjustment for ACOs in agreement periods beginning on July
1, 2019, and in subsequent years. CMS uses an ACO's prospective HCC
risk score to adjust the benchmark for changes in severity and case mix
in the assigned beneficiary population between BY3 and the performance
year.
[[Page 68080]]
(i) Positive adjustments in prospective HCC risk scores are subject
to a cap of 3 percent.
(ii) This cap is the maximum increase in risk scores for each
agreement period, such that any positive adjustment between BY3 and any
performance year in the agreement period cannot be larger than 3
percent.
(3) In risk adjusting the benchmark as described in Sec. Sec.
425.601(a)(10), 425.602(a)(9) and 425.603(c)(10), CMS makes separate
adjustments for each of the following populations of beneficiaries:
(i) ESRD.
(ii) Disabled.
(iii) Aged/dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
(iv) Aged/non-dual eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For an ACO that is liable for a pro-rated share of losses under
Sec. 425.221(b)(2)(ii) or (b)(3)(i), the amount of shared losses
determined for the performance year during which the termination
becomes effective is adjusted according to this paragraph (i)(2).
(ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(k) July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 performance year. Shared
savings or shared losses for the July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019
performance year are calculated as described in Sec. 425.609.
0
35. Section 425.612 is amended--
0
a. By revising paragraphs (a)(1) introductory text and (a)(1)(ii)(A);
0
b. By redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(B) through (G) as paragraphs
(a)(1)(ii)(C) through (H);
0
c. By adding new paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B);
0
d. By revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A), (a)(1)(iv), and (a)(1)(v)
introductory text;
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)(v)(A) through (C) as paragraphs
(a)(1)(v)(C) through (E);
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (a)(1)(v)(A) and (B);
0
g. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(v)(D); and
0
h. By adding paragraphs (a)(1)(vi) and (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 425.612 Waivers of payment rules or other Medicare requirements.
(a) * * *
(1) SNF 3-day rule. For performance year 2017 and subsequent
performance years, CMS waives the requirement in section 1861(i) of the
Act for a 3-day inpatient hospital stay prior to a Medicare-covered
post-hospital extended care service for eligible beneficiaries assigned
to ACOs participating in a two-sided model and as provided in paragraph
(a)(1)(iv) of this section during a grace period for beneficiaries
excluded from prospective assignment to an ACO in a two-sided model,
who receive otherwise covered post-hospital extended care services
furnished by an eligible SNF that has entered into a written agreement
to partner with the ACO for purposes of this waiver. Eligible SNFs
include providers furnishing SNF services under swing bed agreements.
All other provisions of the statute and regulations regarding Medicare
Part A post-hospital extended care services continue to apply. ACOs
identified under paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of this section may request to
use the SNF 3-day rule waiver for performance years beginning on July
1, 2019, and in subsequent years.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) In the case of a beneficiary who is assigned to an ACO that has
selected preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation under Sec. 425.400(a)(2), the beneficiary must appear
on the list of preliminarily prospectively assigned beneficiaries at
the beginning of the performance year or on the first, second, or third
quarterly preliminary prospective assignment list for the performance
year in which they are admitted to the eligible SNF, and the SNF
services must be provided after the beneficiary first appeared on the
preliminary prospective assignment list for the performance year.
(B) In the case of a beneficiary who is assigned to an ACO that has
selected prospective assignment under Sec. 425.400(a)(3), the
beneficiary must be prospectively assigned to the ACO for the
performance year in which they are admitted to the eligible SNF.
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) Providers eligible to be included in the CMS 5-star Quality
Rating System must have and maintain an overall rating of 3 or higher.
* * * * *
(iv) For a beneficiary who was included on the ACO's prospective
assignment list or preliminary prospective assignment list at the
beginning of the performance year or on the first, second, or third
quarterly preliminary prospective assignment list for the performance
year, for an ACO for which a waiver of the SNF 3-day rule has been
approved under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, but who was
subsequently removed from the assignment list for the performance year,
CMS makes payment for SNF services furnished to the beneficiary by a
SNF affiliate if the following conditions are met:
(A)(1) The beneficiary was prospectively assigned to an ACO that
selected prospective assignment under Sec. 425.400(a)(3) at the
beginning of the applicable performance year, but was excluded in the
most recent quarterly update to the assignment list under Sec.
425.401(b), and the beneficiary was admitted to a SNF affiliate within
90 days following the date that CMS delivered the quarterly exclusion
list to the ACO; or
(2) The beneficiary was identified as preliminarily prospectively
assigned to an ACO that has selected preliminary prospective assignment
with retrospective reconciliation under Sec. 425.400(a)(2) in the
report provided under Sec. 425.702(c)(1)(ii)(A) at the beginning of
the performance year or for the first, second, or third quarter of the
performance year, the SNF services were provided after the beneficiary
first appeared on the preliminary prospective assignment list for the
performance year, and the beneficiary meets the criteria to be assigned
to an ACO under Sec. 425.401(a)(1) and (2).
(B) But for the beneficiary's removal from the ACO's assignment
list, CMS would have made payment to the SNF affiliate for such
services under the waiver under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(v) The following beneficiary protections apply when a beneficiary
receives SNF services without a prior 3-day inpatient hospital stay
from a SNF affiliate that intended to provide services under a SNF 3-
day rule waiver under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the SNF
affiliate services were non-covered only because the SNF affiliate stay
was not preceded by a qualifying hospital stay under section 1861(i) of
the Act, and in the case of a beneficiary where the ACO selected one of
the following:
(A) Prospective assignment under Sec. 425.400(a)(3), the
beneficiary was not prospectively assigned to the ACO for the
performance year in which they received the SNF services, or was
prospectively assigned but was later excluded and the 90-day grace
period, described in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(A) of this section, has
lapsed.
(B) Preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation under Sec. 425.400(a)(2), the beneficiary was not
identified as preliminarily prospectively assigned to
[[Page 68081]]
the ACO for the performance year in the report provided under Sec.
425.702(c)(1)(ii)(A) at the beginning of the performance year or for
the first, second, or third quarter of the performance year before the
SNF services were provided to the beneficiary.
* * * * *
(D) CMS makes no payments for SNF services to a SNF affiliate of an
ACO for which a waiver of the SNF 3-day rule has been approved when the
SNF affiliate admits a FFS beneficiary who was not prospectively or
preliminarily prospectively assigned to the ACO prior to the SNF
admission or was prospectively assigned but was later excluded and the
90-day grace period under paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(A) of this section has
lapsed.
* * * * *
(vi) The following ACOs may request to use the SNF 3-day rule
waiver:
(A) An ACO participating in performance-based risk within the BASIC
track under Sec. 425.605.
(B) An ACO participating in the ENHANCED track under Sec. 425.610.
* * * * *
(f) Waiver for payment for telehealth services. For performance
year 2020 and subsequent performance years, CMS waives the originating
site requirements in section 1834(m)(4)(C)(i) and (ii) of the Act and
makes payment for telehealth services furnished to a beneficiary, if
the following conditions are met:
(1) The beneficiary was prospectively assigned to an ACO that is an
applicable ACO for purposes of Sec. 425.613 at the beginning of the
applicable performance year, but the beneficiary was excluded in the
most recent quarterly update to the prospective assignment list under
Sec. 425.401(b).
(2) The telehealth services are provided by a physician or
practitioner billing under the TIN of an ACO participant in the ACO
within 90 days following the date CMS delivers the quarterly exclusion
list to the ACO.
(3) But for the beneficiary's exclusion from the ACO's prospective
assignment list, CMS would have made payment to the ACO participant for
such services under Sec. 425.613.
0
36. Section 425.613 is added to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 425.613 Telehealth services.
(a) General. Payment is available for otherwise covered telehealth
services furnished on or after January 1, 2020, by a physician or other
practitioner billing through the TIN of an ACO participant in an
applicable ACO, without regard to the geographic requirements under
section 1834(m)(4)(C)(i) of the Act, in accordance with the
requirements of this section.
(1) For purposes of this section:
(i) An applicable ACO is an ACO that is participating under a two-
sided model under Sec. 425.600 and has elected prospective assignment
under Sec. 425.400(a)(3) for the performance year.
(ii) The home of the beneficiary is treated as an originating site
under section 1834(m)(4)(C)(ii) of the Act.
(2) For payment to be made under this section, the following
requirements must be met:
(i) The beneficiary is prospectively assigned to the ACO for the
performance year in which the beneficiary received the telehealth
service.
(ii) The physician or practitioner who furnishes the telehealth
service must bill under the TIN of an ACO participant that is included
on the certified ACO participant list under Sec. 425.118 for the
performance year in which the service is rendered.
(iii) The originating site must comply with applicable State
licensing requirements.
(iv) When the originating site is the beneficiary's home, the
telehealth services must not be inappropriate to furnish in the home
setting. Services that are typically furnished in an inpatient setting
may not be furnished as a telehealth service when the originating site
is the beneficiary's home.
(v) CMS does not pay a facility fee when the originating site is
the beneficiary's home.
(b) Beneficiary protections. (1) When a beneficiary who is not
prospectively assigned to an applicable ACO or in a 90-day grace period
under Sec. 425.612(f) receives a telehealth service from a physician
or practitioner billing through the TIN of an ACO participant
participating in an applicable ACO, CMS makes no payment for the
telehealth service to the ACO participant.
(2) In the event that CMS makes no payment for a telehealth service
furnished by a physician or practitioner billing through the TIN of an
ACO participant, and the only reason the claim was non-covered is
because the beneficiary is not prospectively assigned to the ACO or in
the 90-day grace period under Sec. 425.612(f), all of the following
beneficiary protections apply:
(i) The ACO participant must not charge the beneficiary for the
expenses incurred for such service.
(ii) The ACO participant must return to the beneficiary any monies
collected for such service.
(iii) The ACO may be required to submit a corrective action plan
under Sec. 425.216(b) for CMS approval. If the ACO is required to
submit a corrective action plan and, after being given an opportunity
to act upon the corrective action plan, the ACO fails to implement the
corrective action plan or demonstrate improved performance upon
completion of the corrective action plan, CMS may terminate the
participation agreement as specified under Sec. 425.216(b)(2).
(c) Termination date for purposes of payment for telehealth
services. (1) Payment for telehealth services under paragraph (a) of
this section does not extend beyond the end of the applicable ACO's
participation agreement.
(2) If CMS terminates the participation agreement under Sec.
425.218, payment for telehealth services under paragraph (a) of this
section is not made with respect to telehealth services furnished
beginning on the date specified by CMS in the termination notice.
(3) If the ACO terminates the participation agreement, payment for
telehealth services under paragraph (a) of this section is not made
with respect to telehealth services furnished beginning on the
effective date of termination as specified in the written notification
required under Sec. 425.220.
(d) Monitoring of telehealth services. (1) CMS monitors and audits
the use of telehealth services by the ACO and its ACO participants and
ACO providers/suppliers, in accordance with Sec. 425.316.
(2) CMS reserves the right to take compliance action, up to and
including termination of the participation agreement, as specified in
Sec. Sec. 425.216 and 425.218, with respect to an applicable ACO for
non-compliance with program requirements, including inappropriate use
of telehealth services.
0
37. Section 425.702 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A)
introductory text, (c)(1)(ii)(B) introductory text and (c)(1)(ii)(C) to
read as follows:
Sec. 425.702 Aggregate reports.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) For an ACO participating under preliminary prospective
assignment with retrospective reconciliation as specified under Sec.
425.400(a)(2), the following information is made available regarding
preliminarily prospectively assigned beneficiaries and beneficiaries
that received a primary care service during the previous 12 months from
one of the ACO participants that submits
[[Page 68082]]
claims for primary care services used to determine the ACO's assigned
population under subpart E of this part:
* * * * *
(B) For an ACO participating under preliminary prospective
assignment with retrospective reconciliation as specified under Sec.
425.400(a)(2), information in the following categories, which
represents the minimum data necessary for ACOs to conduct health care
operations work, is made available regarding preliminarily
prospectively assigned beneficiaries:
* * * * *
(C) The information under paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this
section is made available to ACOs participating under prospective
assignment as specified under Sec. 425.400(a)(3), but is limited to
the ACO's prospectively assigned beneficiaries.
* * * * *
0
38. Section 425.704 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 425.704 Beneficiary-identifiable claims data.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) For an ACO participating under--
(i) Preliminary prospective assignment with retrospective
reconciliation as specified under Sec. 425.400(a)(2), the
beneficiary's name appears on the preliminary prospective assignment
list provided to the ACO at the beginning of the performance year,
during each quarter (and in conjunction with the annual reconciliation)
or the beneficiary has received a primary care service from an ACO
participant upon whom assignment is based (under subpart E of this
part) during the most recent 12-month period; or
(ii) Prospective assignment as specified under Sec. 425.400(a)(3),
the beneficiary's name appears on the prospective assignment list
provided to the ACO at the beginning of the performance year.
* * * * *
0
39. Section 425.800 is amended--
0
a. In paragraph (a)(4) by removing the phrase ``under Sec. Sec.
425.602, 425.604, 425.606, and 425.610'' and adding in its place the
phrase ``in accordance with section 1899(d) of the Act, as implemented
under Sec. Sec. 425.601, 425.602, 425.603, 425.604, 425.605, 425.606,
and 425.610'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(5) by removing the phrase ``established under
Sec. Sec. 425.604, 425.606, and 425.610'' and adding in its place the
phrase ``established under Sec. Sec. 425.604, 425.605, 425.606, and
425.610''; and
0
c. By adding paragraph (a)(7).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 425.800 Preclusion of administrative and judicial review.
(a) * * *
(7) The termination of a beneficiary incentive program established
under Sec. 425.304(c).
* * * * *
Dated: December 14, 2018.
Seema Verma,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Dated: December 18, 2018.
Alex M. Azar II,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2018-27981 Filed 12-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P