Cited by 142Healthcare Policy and ManagementPrimary Care and Health OutcomesHealthcare cost, quality, practices

Changes in health care spending and quality for Medicare beneficiaries associated with a commercial ACO contract

Open access
McWilliams, J. Michael, Landon, Bruce E., Chernew, Michael E.·2013·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: In a multipayer system, new payment incentives implemented by one insurer for an accountable care organization (ACO) may also affect spending and quality of care for another insurer's enrollees served by the ACO. Such spillover effects reflect the extent of organizational efforts to reform care delivery and can contribute to the net impact of ACOs. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether the Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Massachusetts' Alternative Quality Contract (AQC), an early commercial ACO initiative associated with reduced spending and improved quality for BCBS enrollees, was also associated with changes in spending and quality for Medicare beneficiaries, who were not covered by the AQC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Quasi-experimental comparisons from 2007-2010 of elderly fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in Massachusetts (1,761,325 person-years) served by 11 provider organizations entering the AQC in 2009 or 2010 (intervention group) vs beneficiaries served by other providers (control group). Using a difference-in-differences approach, we estimated changes in spending and quality for the intervention group in the first and second years of exposure to the AQC relative to concurrent changes for the control group. Regression and propensity score methods were used to adjust for differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was total quarterly medical spending per beneficiary. Secondary outcomes included spending by setting and type of service, 5 process measures of quality, potentially avoidable hospitalizations, and 30-day readmissions. RESULTS: Before entering the AQC, total quarterly spending per beneficiary for the intervention group was $150 (95% CI, $25-$274) higher than for the control group and increased at a similar rate. In year 2 of the intervention group's exposure to the AQC, this difference was reduced to $51 (95% CI, -$109 to $210; P = .53), constituting a significant differential change of -$99 (95% CI, -$183 to -$16; P = .02) or a 3.4% savings relative to an expected quarterly mean of $2895. Savings in year 1 were not significant (differential change, -$34; 95% CI, -$83 to $16; P = .18). Year 2 savings derived largely from lower spending on outpatient care (differential change, -$73; 95% CI, -$97 to -$50; P < .001), particularly for beneficiaries with 5 or more conditions, and included significant differential changes in spending on procedures, imaging, and tests. Annual rates of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol testing differentially improved for beneficiaries with diabetes in the intervention group by 3.1 percentage points (95% CI, 1.4-4.8 percentage points; P < .001) and for those with cardiovascular disease by 2.5 percentage points (95% CI, 1.1-4.0 percentage points; P < .001), but performance on other quality measures did not differentially change. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The AQC was associated with lower spending for Medicare beneficiaries but not with consistently improved quality. Savings among Medicare beneficiaries and previously demonstrated savings among BCBS enrollees varied similarly across settings, services, and time, suggesting that organizational responses were associated with broad changes in patient care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2013.276302

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Available evaluations indicate that health care spending has declined in ACO models.

    “Most ACO models are very new, but available evaluations indicate that health care spending has declined.”

    From The CardioMetabolic Health Alliance (2015) · cites this paper as [103]

  • Medicare beneficiaries in the same market as a commercial ACO realized decreases in total health care spending over 2 years, primarily due to reduced outpatient office visits, minor procedures, imaging, and laboratories.

    “Medicare beneficiaries in the same market as a commercial ACO realized decreases in total health care spending over 2 years, primarily due to reduced outpatient office visits, minor procedures, imaging, and laboratories.”

    From The CardioMetabolic Health Alliance (2015) · cites this paper as [103]

  • There were some improvements in LDL testing for patients with T2D and ASCVD but not on other quality metrics in the commercial ACO evaluation.

    “There were some improvements in LDL testing for patients with T2D and ASCVD but not on other quality metrics (103).”

    From The CardioMetabolic Health Alliance (2015) · cites this paper as [103]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McWilliams, J. M., Landon, B. E., & Chernew, M. E.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
McWilliams, J. Michael
Venue
JAMA
Published
2013-08-28
Volume
310
Issue
8
Pages
829
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2108118644
Cited by
142
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
51.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (K08AG038354, P01AG032952)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
Keywords
accountable care organizations, Medicare beneficiaries, spillover effects, commercial health insurance, health care spending, quality of care, potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 30-day readmission, outpatient care, fee-for-service Medicare, process indicators, health care delivery reform
MeSH terms
Aged, Commerce, Health Expenditures, Female, Patient Care, Medicare, Humans, Male, Massachusetts, Reimbursement, Incentive, United States, Case-Control Studies, Fee-for-Service Plans, Blue Cross Blue Shield Insurance Plans, Quality Improvement, Accountable Care Organizations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review