Accountable care organizations (ACOs) may be well positioned to increase the focus on managing behavioral health conditions (mental health and substance abuse) through the integration of behavioral health treatment and primary care. We used a mixed-methods research design to examine the extent to which ACOs are clinically, organizationally, and financially integrating behavioral health care and primary care. We used data from 257 respondents to the National Survey of Accountable Care Organizations, a nationally representative survey of ACOs. The data were supplemented with semistructured, in-depth interviews with clinical leaders at sixteen ACOs purposively sampled to represent the spectrum of behavioral health integration. We found that most ACOs hold responsibility for some behavioral health care costs, and 42 percent include behavioral health specialists among their providers. However, integration of behavioral health care and primary care remains low, with most ACOs pursuing traditional fragmented approaches to physical and behavioral health care and only a minority implementing innovative models. Contract design and contextual factors appear to influence the extent to which ACOs integrate behavioral health care. Nevertheless, the ACO model has the potential to create opportunities for improving behavioral health care and integrating it with primary care.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) and similar reforms aim to improve coordination between health care providers; however, due to the fragmented nature of the US health care system, successful coordination will hinge in large part on the ability of health care organizations to successfully partner across organizational boundaries. Little is known about new partnerships formed under the ACO model. We use mixed methods data from the National Survey of ACOs, Medicare ACO performance data and interviews with executive leaders across 31 ACOs to examine the prevalence, characteristics, and capabilities of partnership ACOs and why and how ACO partnerships form. We find that a striking percentage of ACOs – 81% – involve new partnerships between independent health care organizations. These “partnership ACOs” generally report lower capabilities on care management, care coordination, and health information technology. Additionally, under Medicare ACO programs partnership ACO achieved somewhat lower quality performance. Qualitative interviews revealed that providers are motivated to partner for resource complementarity, risk reduction, and legislative requirements, and are using a variety of formal and informal accountability mechanisms. Most partnership ACOs were formed out of existing, positive relationships, but a minority of ACOs formed out of previously competitive or conflictual relationships. Our findings suggests that the success of the ACO model will hinge in large part upon the success of new partnerships, with important implications for understanding ACO readiness and capabilities, the relatively small savings achieved to date by ACO programs, and the path to providers bearing more risk for population health management. In addition, ACO partnerships may provide an important window to monitor a potential wave of health care consolidation or, in contrast, a new model of independent providers successfully coordinating patient care.

No abstract

Although accountable care organizations (ACOs) proliferate, little is known about the activities and strategies ACOs are pursuing to meet goals of reducing costs and improving quality. We use semistructured interviews with executives at 16 ACOs to understand ACO approaches. We identified two overarching ACO approaches to changing clinical care: a practice-based transformation approach, working to overhaul care processes and teams from the inside out; and an overlay approach, where ACO activities were centralized and delivered external to physician practices. We additionally identified four methods ACOs were using to achieve their aims: using patient support roles; targeted clinics, events, programs, and interventions; clinical process standardization; and tracking and identifying patients on which to focus resources. We expect that ACOs using either of the major approaches can succeed under current ACO programs, but that as value-based payment programs mature, ACOs will need to undertake practice-based approaches to be successful in the long term.

No abstract

As postponement of first births continues in the United States, women and couples will likely continue to turn to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) to overcome biological barriers to childbearing. This paper uses stochastic projections to estimate the potential impacts of ART on the US total fertility rate (TFR) overall and across sociodemographic groups using publicly available data. Assuming the trends in ART continue and the TFR remains at the mean estimate, the projection shows the ART TFR will rise from 0.023 accounting for 1.29% of the mean projected TFR in 2020 to 0.048 or 2.64% of the TFR by 2040. However, for the TFR of women over 30, this percentage is estimated at 2.68% in 2020 and 5.60% by 2040. Group-level projections quantify stratification by parity, race, and education assuming trends across these groups continue. Overall, the results show that if current trends continue, growth in demand for ART will likely increase, especially at older maternal ages, even as inequalities by race and social class remain. These projections provide a picture of ART births if inequality in access and outcomes is not addressed and highlight the need for attention to policies that address these disparities.

No abstract

The authors evaluated a managed care model developed for use by community-based providers to improve health care outcomes for low-income Latinos with disabilities and chronic illnesses. Through this model, Medicaid enrollees with special health care needs were identified and received enhanced primary care, on-site mental health and addiction services, care coordination, and support services based on their levels of need. The goal of the demonstration was to determine whether capitation would be a catalyst to transform typical primary care delivery processes to provide enhanced, culturally competent care to patients with complex health care and psychosocial needs. Despite a significant investment in outpatient services, the intervention was cost effective due to a dramatic decline in inpatient care for a few enrollees. For most enrollees, care was slightly more expensive due to enhanced outpatient medical and mental health care. Enrollees expressed high satisfaction with the intervention.