17.03.2014 Views

(ACO) regulations - American Society of Anesthesiologists

(ACO) regulations - American Society of Anesthesiologists

(ACO) regulations - American Society of Anesthesiologists

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

CMS-1345-P 268<br />

As <strong>ACO</strong> size increases from 5,000 to 20,000 (or similarly from 20,000 to 50,000), we<br />

propose blending the MSRs between the two neighboring confidence intervals, resulting<br />

in the MSRs as shown in Table 6. We specify an MSR at both the high and low end <strong>of</strong><br />

each range <strong>of</strong> <strong>ACO</strong> population size. A particular <strong>ACO</strong> would be assigned a linearlyinterpolated<br />

MSR given their exact number <strong>of</strong> beneficiaries. For example, an <strong>ACO</strong> with<br />

7,500 beneficiaries would be assigned an MSR <strong>of</strong> 3.3 percent because it lies at the<br />

midpoint between 7,000 and 7,999 beneficiaries, sizes at which the MSR would be 3.4<br />

percent and 3.2 percent, respectively. For <strong>ACO</strong>s serving more than 60,000 aligned<br />

beneficiaries, we propose that the MSR would not be allowed to fall below 2 percent.<br />

This lower bound is designed to protect the shared savings formula from expenditure<br />

reduction due to random chance that can occur in group claims due to factors that persist<br />

regardless <strong>of</strong> a group's size. This lower bound is also consistent with the flat 2 percent<br />

MSR we propose to use in the two-sided model and is the minimum level that was used<br />

in the PGP Demonstration for groups regardless <strong>of</strong> size which also provided a lower<br />

MSR for smaller physician groups participating in the demonstration.<br />

We considered using a flat 95 percent confidence interval for organizations which<br />

is a recognized standard for measuring statistical differences, but as previously noted,<br />

because we believe that many smaller physician-driven and rural <strong>ACO</strong>s have the<br />

potential to improve the quality and efficiency <strong>of</strong> care, we were concerned about the<br />

impact on the ability <strong>of</strong> these <strong>ACO</strong>s to participate in the Shared Savings Program. We<br />

also wanted to protect the Medicare Trust Funds against large organizations coming<br />

together solely for purposes <strong>of</strong> aggregating their number <strong>of</strong> assigned beneficiaries in<br />

order to have smaller MSRs to be able to achieve the minimum required savings levels

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!