Low-Value Care and Clinician Engagement in a Large Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO: a Survey of Frontline Clinicians
Although the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) created new incentives for organizations to improve healthcare value, Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) have achieved only modest reductions in the use of low-value care.
To assess ACO engagement of clinicians and whether engagement was associated with clinicians’ reported difficulty implementing recommendations against low-value care.
Cross-sectional survey of ACO clinicians in 2018.
1289 clinicians in the Physician Organization of Michigan ACO, including generalist physicians (18%), internal medicine specialists (16%), surgeons (10%), other physician specialists (27%), and advanced practice providers (29%). Response rate was 34%.
Primary exposures included clinicians’ participation in ACO decision-making, awareness of ACO incentives, perceived influence on practice, and perceived quality improvement. Our primary outcome was clinicians’ reported difficulty implementing recommendations against low-value care.
Few clinicians participated in the decision to join the ACO (3%). Few clinicians were aware of ACO incentives, including knowing the ACO was accountable for both spending and quality (23%), successfully lowered spending (9%), or faced upside risk only (3%). Few agreed (moderately or strongly) the ACO changed compensation (20%), practice (19%), or feedback (15%) or that it improved care coordination (17%) or inappropriate care (13%). Clinicians reported they had difficulty following recommendations against low-value care 18% of the time; clinicians reported patients had difficulty accepting recommendations 36% of the time. Increased ACO awareness (1 standard deviation [SD]) was associated with decreased difficulty (− 2.3 percentage points) implementing recommendations (95% confidence interval [CI] − 3.8, − 0.7), as was perceived quality improvement (1 SD increase, − 2.1 percentage points, 95% CI, − 3.4, − 0.8). Participation in ACO decision-making and perceived influence on practice were not associated with recommendation implementation.
Clinicians participating in a large Medicare ACO were broadly unaware of and unengaged with ACO objectives and activities. Whether low clinician engagement limits ACO efforts to reduce low-value care warrants further longitudinal study.
KEY WORDShealthcare reform health policy health services research stakeholder engagement survey research
This work benefited from guidance on survey development and administration from Lisa Holland, M.A., Tedi Engler, B.S., and Eve Kerr, M.D., M.P.H. The authors acknowledge the Physician Organization of Michigan ACO for its commitment to evaluation and research.
Mr. Markovitz is supported by the Horowitz Foundation For Social Policy, AHRQ grant R36HS025615, and the University of Michigan Rackham Hammel Research Award. Dr. Ryan is supported by National Institute on Aging grant R01AG047932. Dr. Hollingsworth is supported by AHRQ grants R01HS024728 and 1R01HS024525-01A1. The Physician Organization of Michigan ACO provided funds for survey mailings.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Rozier, Dr. Goold, Dr. Ayanian, Dr. Norton, and Dr. Peterson have no disclosures to make. The remaining author disclosures are listed in the funding statement.
The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
- 2.Hollingsworth JM, Nallamothu BK, Yan P, et al. Medicare Accountable Care Organizations Are Not Associated With Reductions in the Use of Low-Value Coronary Revascularization. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.117.004492
- 16.Lewis VA, Tierney KI, Fraze T, Murray GF. Care Transformation Strategies and Approaches of Accountable Care Organizations. Med Care Res Rev. 2017.Google Scholar
- 19.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations Public Use File. 2016a. https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/downloadable-public-use-files/sspaco/index.html. Accessed September 17, 2019.
- 20.Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Kullgren JT, Fagerlin A, Klamerus ML, Bernstein SJ, Kerr EA. Perceived Barriers to Implementing Individual Choosing Wisely(®) Recommendations in Two National Surveys of Primary Care Providers. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(2):210–217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3853-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.American Medical Association. American Medical Association Physician Practice 2016 Benchmark Survey. https://www.ama-assn.org/about/physician-practice-benchmark-survey.
- 26.ABIM Foundation. Choosing Wisely. http://www.choosingwisely.org/clinician-lists/. Accessed September 17, 2019.
- 27.Dillman D. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2014.Google Scholar
- 28.American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 9th ed. Lenexa; 2016.Google Scholar
- 29.Admon AJ, Gupta A, Williams M, et al. Appraising the Evidence Supporting Choosing Wisely(R) Recommendations. J Hosp Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.2964
- 34.von Hippel PT. How many imputations do you need? A two-stage calculation using a quadratic rule. Sociol Methods Res. 2018;in press.Google Scholar
- 39.Colla CH, Lewis VA, Lao L, O’Malley AJ, Chang CH, Fisher ES. Association between Medicare accountable care organization implementation and spending among clinically vulnerable beneficiaries. JAMA Intern Med. 2016.Google Scholar