The couple also received more than a thousand dollars in spending money and a personal concierge, who attended to their every need. For Santa Barbara County, it was money well spent: Sending Robinson-Stone 250 miles away for knee replacement surgery near San Diego saved the government $30,000.

“The only difference between our two hospitals is one is expensive and the other is exorbitant,” said Andreas Pyper, assistant director of human resources for Santa Barbara County, referring to the local options.

Frustration with sky-high hospital bills and a lack of local competition is common to many employers and consumers across the country after years of industry consolidation. Fed up with wildly different for routine operations, some are they insure to top-performing providers who offer bargain prices. Santa Barbara County, with about 4,000 employees, is among a handful of public entities to join them.

The county has saved nearly 50 percent on four surgery cases since starting its out-of-town program last year, officials said. The program is voluntary for covered employees.

That leaves some health-policy experts dismayed.

“These bundled payments put pressure on medical providers … and the savings are astonishing,” said Bob Kocher, a former health official in the Obama administration and now a partner in the venture capital firm Venrock.

Santa Barbara County officials said they had no choice after seeing their medical costs soar by 15 percent in each of the past two years. Like many local governments, it has an older workforce prone to chronic illness, blocked arteries and bum knees.

But health costs run higher than the state average in this scenic coastal county of about 450,000 people, from Oakland-based Integrated Healthcare Association. By , the average health insurance premium in the individual market runs $660 a month in Santa Barbara, 27 percent higher than in Los Angeles.

Still, Maya Barraza, the county’s manager for employee benefits and rewards, knew the program would be a hard sell to workers. “You don’t want to be away from your family and what’s familiar,” she said.

Cottage Health, the county’s largest health system, says it wants to keep patients in town for treatment and follow-up care.

Established in 1891, it’s grown from a single hospital to more than 500 beds across three hospitals, and annual revenue hit $746 million last year.

Valet attendants greet visitors at two entrances outside the group’s white, Spanish-style hospital in the city of Santa Barbara. In the main lobby, the names of wealthy donors are splashed across one wall, including billionaire investor and Donald Trump confidant Thomas Barrack.

“We are continually looking at reducing costs and improving quality,” said Cottage Health spokeswoman Maria Zate. “Cottage Health has some of the top surgeons in California.”

Sixty miles north in Santa Maria, the state’s largest hospital chain, Dignity Health, offers another option: Marian Regional Medical Center.

Both Cottage and Dignity hospitals in Santa Barbara County have quality scores of fair to excellent for joint replacements, spinal procedures and coronary bypass surgeries, according to three years of Medicare data analyzed by research firm .

Dignity Health didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Carrum tries to help employers like Santa Barbara County find more affordable options. It has struck bundled price deals for various procedures with Scripps hospitals in the San Diego area, Stanford Health Care in the Bay Area and Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, part of the Providence Health chain.

Several other companies, such as Health Design Plus, are also assisting employers, insurers and patients with the logistics of surgery shopping. Boeing and other are the most aggressive at pursuing bundled pricing and sending workers across the country for care.

Since 2014, more than 2,000 joint replacement and spinal surgeries have been performed for fixed prices through the Pacific Business Group on Health’s “” program, which includes employers such as JetBlue and Lowe’s. It added gastric bypass and other bariatric surgeries last year, and the employer group is working on bundled prices for cancer treatment.

Some companies have gone so far as to for cheaper care, but most employers favor a more regional approach, experts say. Workers still rely on local physicians for follow-up care.

Municipalities, school districts and other public employers have been slower to adopt some of these strategies, perhaps to avoid the political risk of antagonizing local providers, some .

For some hospitals, there are advantages in offering deep discounts: They get patients they otherwise would never see and are paid in full right after the patient is discharged, avoiding the onerous billing and collections process.

They also have the financial capacity to offer such sharply reduced prices.

Michael Bark, assistant vice president of payer relations at Scripps Health, said most hospitals significantly mark up their commercial rates for orthopedic procedures and cardiac surgeries to compensate for lower government reimbursements.

“There are immense profit margins built into those cases,” Bark said.

Robinson-Stone, a former county sheriff’s deputy and a computer support specialist, was initially wary of traveling for her surgery. But the 62-year-old Lompoc resident had ongoing pain that kept her from biking, walking her dogs and tending to her fruit trees. Medication and cortisone shots didn’t work, and she had no ties to local surgeons. So she signed up online and was given a choice of six orthopedic surgeons at Scripps Green Hospital in La Jolla.

In June 2016, she and her husband, Frank Stone, checked in at the Estancia La Jolla Hotel and Spa.

Robinson-Stone met the surgeon on a Wednesday, had the operation the next day and returned to her hotel room by Saturday. She continued physical therapy at the hotel and returned to the hospital a few days later to have the staples removed.

She was back on her bike within two months and eventually lost about 20 pounds.

“I just celebrated one year from surgery,” she said, “and I’m a happy camper.”

Heidi DeMarco contributed to this story.

This story was produced by , which publishes , an editorially independent service of the .

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Under the new program, Medicare effectively agrees to pay hospitals a set fee — a bundled payment — for all care related to hip or knee replacement surgery, from the time of the surgery until 90 days after. Traditionally, hospitals collect payments for many components of care and rehabilitation individually.

Tom Price, the president-elect’s HHS nominee, a congressman from Georgia and an orthopedic surgeon, has actively opposed the idea of mandating bundled payments for these orthopedic operations, calling it “experimenting with Americans’ health,” in a letter to the Medicare agency just last September. In addition, the agency which designed and implemented the experiment, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, was created by the Affordable Care Act to devise new methods for encouraging cost-effective care. It will disappear if the act is repealed, as President-elect Trump has promised to do.

The study appeared Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Though one of its authors is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who helped design the ACA, the research relies on Medicare claims data from 2008 through mid-2015, long before the presidential election.

Starting in 2016, CMS required around 800 hospitals in 67 cities to use the bundled payment model for joint replacements and 90 days of care after the surgery as part of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement program. The program had previously been road-tested on a smaller number of hospitals on a voluntary basis, which formed the focus of the research.

The study found that hospitals saved an average of 8 percent under the program, and some saved much more. Price has been skeptical that bundled payments did save money, but the researchers estimate that if every hospital used this model, it would save Medicare $2 billion annually.

The bundled payment program works like this: For some specific kinds of medical procedures, including joint replacements or some heart surgeries, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will add up the costs for the entire episode, from the hospital stay and medical supplies to the rehabilitation afterward. If the total costs are below a target set by CMS, the hospital gets to keep the savings. If not, the hospital has to pay Medicare the difference. It’s supposed to incentivize more efficient spending and better care coordination between providers, so they can lower costs.

In practice, it seems to be working. Baptist Health System, a network of five hospitals in San Antonio, saved an average of $5,577 on each joint replacement without sacrificing the quality of care, according to the study. Baptist was an early adopter of bundled payments; it began experimenting with them in 2008. Over seven years, the hospital system has cut Medicare’s costs on knee replacements by almost 21 percent.

The savings came without impacting quality. Patients at Baptist Health System were just as likely to be readmitted to the hospital or end up in the emergency room as patients nationally. There was some indication that quality of care may be better; fewer patients under bundled payments had long, extended hospital stays.

In Price’s from September, he said that Medicare had exceeded its powers in imposing such bundled payments, which he said took decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients.

That doesn’t seem to be the case, according to Dr. Amol Navathe, an assistant professor of medicine and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and one of the authors of the JAMA study. Instead, Navathe and his colleagues suggest that the bundled payments actually fostered greater collaboration between surgeons, administrators and patients because programs could only succeed in saving money if physicians were engaged in creating standardized pathways for care.

For example, the Baptist Health System saved about 30 percent on implant costs, around $2,000 on each artificial joint, by using the least expensive medically equivalent implants as determined by the hospitals’ surgeons.

Usually, physicians are prevented from benefitting when hospitals save money because of anti-kickback laws. Waivers under bundled payment models mean surgeons can put in the time to find the best, most cost-effective implants, and share in some of that savings.

“It takes that extra level of effort and coordination, and proactively communicate with [patients],” Navathe said. “Preplanning, setting of expectations and communicating up-front is resource intensive, when they have the incentive to do that they were willing to expend the extra resources to make that happen.”

When bundles included care after a patient’s hospital stay, spending on rehabilitation went down 54 percent. That’s because hospitals took the time to match patients to the right level of care, Navathe said.

Patients who didn’t need to stay in a nursing home or rehab center were set up with home health care or physical therapy.

Price has objected to CMS making bundled payments mandatory, calling it an instance of federal overreach. But bundled payments only work if everyone has to participate, according to Darshak Sanghavi, the former director of prevention and population health at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation.

If hospitals can choose whether or not to participate, only the ones that are already delivering care efficiently –and coming in under CMS’s cost target — will use bundles and Medicare will constantly be paying out bonuses. The system needs to be mandatory, Sanghavi said, to pull in less efficient hospitals and give them incentive to change.

“Stopping the programs for ideological reasons I think impedes innovation in a way that is going to consign us to having really, really high costs of care that’s going to continue in the future,” Sanghavi said.

Bundled payments aren’t just for hip and knee replacements. On Dec. 20, CMS it would expand mandatory bundled payments to treatments for heart attacks, bypass surgery and cardiac rehab beginning in July 2017. In its waning days, the Obama administration is effectively throwing down the gauntlet to the incoming administration on bundled payments, one of its signature reforms.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

How do these firms do it? With “bundled payments,” a way of paying that’s gaining steam across the health care industry, and that Medicare is now for hip and knee replacements in 67 metropolitan areas, including New York, Miami and Denver.

Here’s how it works: Lowe’s and other employers pay one flat rate for a particular procedure from any of a number of hospitals they’ve selected for quality, even if they are a plane ride away. And, under the agreement, the hospital handles all the treatment within a certain time frame — the surgery, the physical therapy and any complications that arise — all for that one price.

It was , senior vice president for compensation and benefits at Lowe’s, who came up with the idea in 2010. When he told managers at other companies about it, he said, “The first question was always, ‘Oh, this is just for executives, right?’ And I said no, absolutely not, this is for any Lowe’s employee in the Lowe’s health care plans.”

The program is optional for employees. They can still use their local surgeon, if they prefer, and pay out-of-pocket whatever their insurance doesn’t cover. But more than 700 Lowe’s employees have taken the company up on its offer, Ihrie said.

It’s a great deal for patients, he said, and for his company.

“We were able to get a bundled price, which actually enables us to save money on every single operation,” Ihrie says.

“We’re seeing savings at the front end,” she said, because Lowe’s pays less for the surgery. And, because the hospital is responsible for all that care, the institution has a strong incentive to be careful and thorough, Ross added.

That means “huge savings on the back end,” she said, “from things like reduced re-admissions, reduced return to the O.R. and lower rates of blood clots. Those are hugely expensive, preventable complications.”

Lowe’s comes out ahead, even after paying for the patient’s travel, Ihrie confirmed.

Participating hospitals win, too, by attracting more patients, said Trisha Frick, who handles such negotiations on behalf of in Baltimore.

“It’s new business for us,” Frick said. “And, for the most part, the reimbursement is acceptable; we believe that we can provide that, within that amount of money.”

Medicare, the health insurance program for people 65 and older, started using bundled rates for hip and knee replacements this month. Medicare had some early evidence from pilot programs that “the model works well,” according to , a health care consultant with The Advisory Board Company.

“Medicare is saving something like $4,000 on orthopedic cases,” he said.

Medicare’s deal is somewhat different than Lowe’s. Patients may pay something out of pocket, depending on the type of Medicare policy that insures them. And while the few hospitals selected in Lowe’s program can bank on increasing their revenue and the number of surgeries they’ll get, the rates established by Medicare’s bundled payment system hold for every hospital in a participating area.

“Entire markets are selected for participating,” Lazerow explains. “If you’re in the San Francisco market or you’re in the New York market, all of the hospitals are actually participating in the program.”

But there are similarities, too, and Medicare may learn some lessons from Lowe’s experience. Lowe’s initially had trouble wrangling all a patient’s medical records from local doctors. And the company found that patients who had questions weeks or months after an operation sometimes had trouble following up with the out-of-town doctor who had performed the surgery.

“You have some setbacks, and things happen, and you just have questions,” Ihrie said. “So what we give every patient now is a little card with the doctor’s name and direct phone line and the nurse’s name and direct phone line. And all of a sudden, things were a lot better.”

Another lesson was startling, Ross said. In addition to cutting the cost of procedures, another chunk of savings to the companies came from avoiding surgeries that probably shouldn’t happen in the first place.

“We’re seeing up to 30 percent — close to 30 percent of cases — who should not be moving forward with the joint replacement,” Ross said.

What typically happens in these cases, she said, is that employees get a recommendation from a local doctor that they should have surgery, only to have physicians at the selected hospitals deem the operation inappropriate.

In some cases that may be because the employee hadn’t first tried less invasive treatments, such as physical therapy, Ross said. Or the employee may need to lose weight first, to make the surgery safer.

Ihrie said what heartens him most about his company’s program is that Lowe’s employees are now taking a more active role in decisions about their care.

“What treatment you receive is not always very black and white,” he said. “The mere fact that people now think about what they’re doing helps us control costs across the board.”

This story is part of a reporting partnership with , and .

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services offers the lure of bonuses to health care practitioners who band together as , or ACOs, to take care of patients. The financial incentives are intended to encourage these doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and other institutions to keep patients healthy rather than primarily treat illnesses, which is what Medicare payments traditionally have rewarded. ACOs that save a substantial amount get to keep a share of the savings as a bonus.

Accountable Care Organization Performance 2014

Medicare expected accountable care organizations would be saving Medicare millions by now, but the program is falling short of targets, data show.

The Obama administration as one of the most promising reforms in the 2010 federal health care law. The administration that by the end of 2018, currently based on the volume of procedures a doctor or hospital performs will instead be linked to quality and frugality. But so far the ACO program generally has been a one-way street, with most doctors and hospitals happy to accept bonuses while declining to be on the hook for a share of any excessive costs run up by their patients.

Last year, Medicare paid $60 billion to 353 ACOs to take care of nearly 6 million Medicare beneficiaries. Some ACOs made significant strides in reducing use of hospitals and other costly resources. But patients at 45 percent of groups cost Medicare more than the government had projected based on their patients’ historic costs, records show. After paying bonuses to the strong performers, the ACO program resulted in a net loss of nearly $3 million to the Medicare trust fund, government records show.

“It’s turning out to be tougher to transform care and realign delivery than people had expected,” said Eric Cragun, an analyst with The Advisory Board Company, a consulting group based in Washington.

Medicare officials said most ACOs are still in their infancy, and that performances will improve with experience and ultimately save significant sums for Medicare while improving care for beneficiaries. “In the long run we’re shooting to achieve those goals,” Sean Cavanaugh, CMS’ deputy administrator, said in an interview.

Nonetheless, the results are short of what as it launched the program. Those estimates anticipated the government would save between $10 million and $320 million during 2014.

‘Bearing Risk Is A Big Leap’

The ACO program’s bottom line has been hurt by the reluctance of most ACOs to accept financial responsibility for their patients. Only 7 percent of ACOs opted last year for a high-risk/high-reward deal in which they had the potential to earn larger bonuses but would have to reimburse the government should their patients instead cost Medicare more than expected.

The rest of the ACOs opted to avoid the potential of financial punishment even though it meant their potential bonuses would be smaller. The risk aversion proved so widespread that up to six years to participate without fear of penalties, instead of phasing out that option.

“Many of these ACOs are newly formed groups of doctors and hospitals, and bearing risk is a big leap,” Cavanaugh said.

Last year, 196 ACOs saved Medicare money, while 157 ACOs cost more than expected. Medicare ultimately did not realize any savings because it paid out bonuses to 97 ACOs, but only three of the costly ACOs had to repay Medicare for losses their patients incurred.

In Oregon, North Bend Medical Center ACO patients cost Medicare $9 million. Spending for those patients was 12 percent more than projected, the largest gap of any ACO. In Los Angeles, the government spent $20 million, or 11 percent, more than expected for ACO patients at Cedars-Sinai Medical Care Foundation. That was the largest amount in dollars. Both ACOs had chosen to be exempt from financial penalties.

North Bend dropped out of the program earlier this year.

Cedars-Sinai said its ACO patients ended up more expensive than other previous patients because the hospital added new physician practices specializing in cancer and heart disease, which are among the most costly conditions to treat. In a statement Thursday, Cedars said it unintentionally failed to include those patients in the comparisons it sent to Medicare and was now revising its calculations.

Even some of the ACOs that saved the most money have yet to accept financial risk. Costs for patients at Winchester Community ACO in Massachusetts were 16 percent less than Medicare estimated. The ACO earned a bonus of $5 million. Catharine Robertson, an executive with Winchester Hospital, said their cost-saving initiatives were created when the ACO was formed. One team at the ACO identified patients as high risk of getting sick and sought to intercede before they ended up requiring hospitalization.

“We’re absolutely thrilled with our success the last few years, but the reality is there’s a lot to learn about population-based management,” she said.

The largest bonus in dollars, $23 million, went to Memorial Hermann Accountable Care Organization in Houston, which was 11 percent below Medicare’s cost expectations. Christopher Lloyd, the CEO of Memorial Hermann’s ACO, credited its success to a decade’s worth of changes that improved cooperation among physicians and the hospital, as well as the creation of systems to share medical details of patients.

“The ACO when we formed it in 2012 was just an extension of what we were already doing,” Lloyd said. He said committed ACOs could make the same improvements in three to four years. “What took us 10 years to build does not take 10 years to replicate,” he said. Still, Memorial Hermann, like Winchester, is not yet accepting risk.

Difficulties In Implementing The Program

To wring overall savings for Medicare, the government faces a bind, analysts said. If Medicare makes the potential of repayments mandatory, many existing ACOs may drop out of the program and new ones are less likely to join. If the majority of ACOs continue to risk no financial repercussions, they have less incentive to save the government money. And without showing savings, it will be hard for Medicare to expand the program.

Clif Gaus, president of the National Association of ACOs, said Medicare should be making it easier for ACOs to earn bonuses as they assemble their operations. “Any start-up company, I don’t care who they are, never makes profits in the early years,” Gaus said. “Starting a health care delivery system is just as hard, if not harder, than starting a Facebook or an Amazon.”

Because Medicare sets its expectations based on national spending averages, “it’s really hard to save money in some parts of the country,” said David Muhlestein, an executive at the consulting firm Leavitt Partners based in Salt Lake City. “We’ve talked to ACOs that have joined the program, started to make changes and decided that it’s really too much work right now.”

Sharp Healthcare, a well-regarded five-hospital system in San Diego, dropped out of the program last year after concluding it might not be able to avoid penalties. In a , Sharp said that because Medicare’s assessments are “based on national financial trend factors that are not adjusted for specific conditions that an ACO is facing in a particular region (e.g., San Diego), the model was financially detrimental to Sharp ACO.”

Jeff Goldsmith, a health industry analyst and professor at the University of Virginia who is a longtime ACO critic, said the ACO model is flawed. Consumers do not actively opt to participate in the ACOs and do not share in any savings, so they lack financial incentives to help keep costs down, he said. ACOs also have limited leverage to control the costs incurred by highly paid specialists such as surgeons and cardiologists. Patients in ACOS can still go to any doctor who accepts Medicare’s regular method of paying, in which they receive a set fee based on the nature of the service without regard to its outcome.

“Faux managed care is actually harder to do than real managed care,” Goldsmith said. The ACO program, he said, “has a bad enough reputation in the provider community that is not going to grow sufficiently to replace regular Medicare.”

The Obama administration is more optimistic. The administration said patients are benefiting with better care, as most quality measures Medicare is using to track ACO performance improved between 2013 and 2014.

CMS’ actuaries believe the ACOs are performing better than they appear when compared to the historical benchmarks that the health law established, which CMS has been using. The actuaries employed an alternative method in a issued last spring, comparing Medicare spending trends in places with ACOs and those without, and concluded that, overall, ACOs were saving money.

Still, ACOs’ appetite for taking risk remains small. The number of ACOs opting for the largest potential bonuses and penalties has shrunk from 32 at the start of the program to 19. Rob Lazerow, an Advisory Board consultant, said, “In a world where ACOs are still optional, CMS still has to make it attractive for providers to want to participate.”

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).