问责保健组织:平衡法案

Jerry A. Johnson
{"title":"问责保健组织:平衡法案","authors":"Jerry A. Johnson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2457584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The ACA has three fundamental goals: (1) Increase access to health care; (2) Reduce the cost of health care; and (3) Improve the quality of health care. To reduce costs and improve quality, section 3022 of the ACA promotes the formation and operation of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to treat Medicare beneficiaries in the new Medicare Shared Savings Program (SSP). ACOs are made up of competing health care providers collaborating to deliver efficient, coordinated care that meets quality performance and cost-saving standards that are determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). ACOs may take many forms, “including networks of individual practices, partnerships, hospitals, [joint ventures] and other health care professionals.” The ACA hopes to encourage new innovative delivery models and does not place heavy restrictions on the form or type of entity sufficient to gain the status of ACO.“It is expected that most health care providers that form ACOs for Medicare beneficiaries will also seek to use the ACO structure for their commercially-insured patients.” In order to produce cost-saving efficiencies, ACOs will look to negotiate contracts between their participating providers, including price terms. ACOs negotiating with private payers raises antitrust concerns over possible price fixing and exercise of market power to restrain trade. ACO practices that restrain trade would undermine the ACA’s attempt to reduce costs and improve quality by further impairing the health care market and harming consumers/patients.In 2011, CMS published the final rule implementing section 3022 of the ACA which creates the Medicare Shared Savings Program and encourages the creation of ACOs. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are the two government agencies charged with enforcing antitrust law. The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice have recently published guidance laying out antitrust enforcement as it relates to Accountable Care Organizations.There are three significant developments that flow from the guidance: 1) ACOs engaged in joint price negotiations with commercial health plans will be treated under the “rule of reason” if the ACO meets CMS’ eligibility standards for SSP participation; 2) ACOs that control up to 30% of market shares in any of its “common services” will be protected by a “safety zone” which shields the ACO from antitrust challenge absent extraordinary circumstances and 3) the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice scrapped a mandatory review of ACOs that might wield market power and replaced it with a voluntary review process that can help ACOs that fall outside the safety zone to better assess its chances of raising antitrust concerns.As mentioned, collaboration between competing providers in ACOs raises antitrust concerns that providers may engage in horizontal price-fixing or exercise market power by setting supracompetitive prices for their services in the commercial market. Horizontal price-fixing violates section 1 of the Sherman Act. Horizontal price-fixing occurs when competitors agree on prices, allowing the competitors to raise prices to supracompetitive levels and possibly shield themselves from competition. ACOs bring competing providers together to share information and coordinate care in order to lower costs and improve the quality of care. An unintended outcome could be horizontal price-fixing by participant providers who use the ACO structure to negotiate with health insurance plans in the commercial market. The result of ACO participant providers engaging in anticompetitive behavior would be higher prices for consumers and lower quality of care. Thus, horizontal price-fixing threatens not only to undermine the goals of the Shared Savings Program, but to possibly exacerbate the very problems that the ACA attempts to solve.This research article explores the guidance, in light of past policy, with a focus on whether the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice’s approach properly balances the need to incentivize provider participation in the SSP and the need to prevent restraint of trade in the health care markets. First, we will look at the dynamics of the health care market and the body of law that make up American antitrust law. Second, we will look at how the antitrust statutory law has been applied to the health care market in the past. Finally, we will address the marked changes in antitrust policy as it relates to ACOs under the ACA and whether or not these perceived changes are for the better or the worse.","PeriodicalId":76903,"journal":{"name":"Employee benefits journal","volume":"85 5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accountable Care Organizations: A Balancing Act\",\"authors\":\"Jerry A. Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2457584\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The ACA has three fundamental goals: (1) Increase access to health care; (2) Reduce the cost of health care; and (3) Improve the quality of health care. To reduce costs and improve quality, section 3022 of the ACA promotes the formation and operation of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to treat Medicare beneficiaries in the new Medicare Shared Savings Program (SSP). ACOs are made up of competing health care providers collaborating to deliver efficient, coordinated care that meets quality performance and cost-saving standards that are determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). ACOs may take many forms, “including networks of individual practices, partnerships, hospitals, [joint ventures] and other health care professionals.” The ACA hopes to encourage new innovative delivery models and does not place heavy restrictions on the form or type of entity sufficient to gain the status of ACO.“It is expected that most health care providers that form ACOs for Medicare beneficiaries will also seek to use the ACO structure for their commercially-insured patients.” In order to produce cost-saving efficiencies, ACOs will look to negotiate contracts between their participating providers, including price terms. ACOs negotiating with private payers raises antitrust concerns over possible price fixing and exercise of market power to restrain trade. ACO practices that restrain trade would undermine the ACA’s attempt to reduce costs and improve quality by further impairing the health care market and harming consumers/patients.In 2011, CMS published the final rule implementing section 3022 of the ACA which creates the Medicare Shared Savings Program and encourages the creation of ACOs. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are the two government agencies charged with enforcing antitrust law. The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice have recently published guidance laying out antitrust enforcement as it relates to Accountable Care Organizations.There are three significant developments that flow from the guidance: 1) ACOs engaged in joint price negotiations with commercial health plans will be treated under the “rule of reason” if the ACO meets CMS’ eligibility standards for SSP participation; 2) ACOs that control up to 30% of market shares in any of its “common services” will be protected by a “safety zone” which shields the ACO from antitrust challenge absent extraordinary circumstances and 3) the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice scrapped a mandatory review of ACOs that might wield market power and replaced it with a voluntary review process that can help ACOs that fall outside the safety zone to better assess its chances of raising antitrust concerns.As mentioned, collaboration between competing providers in ACOs raises antitrust concerns that providers may engage in horizontal price-fixing or exercise market power by setting supracompetitive prices for their services in the commercial market. Horizontal price-fixing violates section 1 of the Sherman Act. Horizontal price-fixing occurs when competitors agree on prices, allowing the competitors to raise prices to supracompetitive levels and possibly shield themselves from competition. ACOs bring competing providers together to share information and coordinate care in order to lower costs and improve the quality of care. An unintended outcome could be horizontal price-fixing by participant providers who use the ACO structure to negotiate with health insurance plans in the commercial market. The result of ACO participant providers engaging in anticompetitive behavior would be higher prices for consumers and lower quality of care. Thus, horizontal price-fixing threatens not only to undermine the goals of the Shared Savings Program, but to possibly exacerbate the very problems that the ACA attempts to solve.This research article explores the guidance, in light of past policy, with a focus on whether the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice’s approach properly balances the need to incentivize provider participation in the SSP and the need to prevent restraint of trade in the health care markets. First, we will look at the dynamics of the health care market and the body of law that make up American antitrust law. Second, we will look at how the antitrust statutory law has been applied to the health care market in the past. Finally, we will address the marked changes in antitrust policy as it relates to ACOs under the ACA and whether or not these perceived changes are for the better or the worse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":76903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Employee benefits journal\",\"volume\":\"85 5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Employee benefits journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2457584\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employee benefits journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2457584","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2010年,奥巴马总统签署了《患者保护和平价医疗法案》(ACA)。ACA有三个基本目标:(1)增加获得医疗保健的机会;(2)降低保健费用;(3)提高卫生保健质量。为了降低成本和提高质量,ACA第3022条促进了责任医疗组织(ACOs)的形成和运作,以治疗新的医疗保险共享储蓄计划(SSP)中的医疗保险受益人。ACOs由相互竞争的医疗保健提供者组成,他们合作提供高效、协调的医疗服务,以满足医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)确定的质量绩效和成本节约标准。ACOs可以采取多种形式,“包括个人执业、合作伙伴、医院、[合资企业]和其他卫生保健专业人员的网络。”ACA希望鼓励新的创新交付模式,并没有对足以获得ACO地位的实体的形式或类型施加严格限制。“预计大多数为医疗保险受益人组建ACOs的医疗服务提供者也将寻求为他们的商业保险患者使用ACOs结构。”为了产生节约成本的效率,ACOs将寻求在其参与的供应商之间谈判合同,包括价格条款。ACOs与私人支付者的谈判引发了反垄断方面的担忧,即可能存在价格操纵和行使市场力量以限制贸易的行为。《平价医疗法》限制贸易的做法会进一步损害医疗保健市场,伤害消费者/患者,从而破坏《平价医疗法》降低成本和提高质量的努力。2011年,CMS发布了实施ACA第3022条的最终规则,该规则创建了医疗保险共享储蓄计划,并鼓励创建ACOs。司法部和联邦贸易委员会是负责执行反垄断法的两个政府机构。美国联邦贸易委员会(Federal Trade Commission)和司法部(Department of Justice)最近发布了与问责保健组织(accountability Care Organizations)相关的反垄断执法指南。该指南有三个重要的发展:1)如果ACO符合CMS参与SSP的资格标准,那么与商业健康计划进行联合价格谈判的ACO将受到“理性规则”的对待;2)治疗,控制了30%的市场份额在任何的“公共服务”将“安全地带”,盾牌保护ACO从反垄断的挑战,在没有特殊情况的前提下,3)美国联邦贸易委员会和司法部报废一个强制性的审查可能行使市场力的这些“可信赖医疗组织”,取而代之的是一个自愿的审查过程,可以帮助治疗,超出了安全地带,以更好地评估其提高反垄断问题的机会。如前所述,ACOs中相互竞争的供应商之间的合作引发了反垄断担忧,即供应商可能通过在商业市场上为其服务设定超竞争性价格来参与横向价格垄断或行使市场力量。横向价格垄断违反了《谢尔曼法》第一条。横向价格垄断指的是竞争对手就价格达成一致,允许竞争对手将价格提高到超竞争水平,并可能使自己免受竞争的影响。ACOs将相互竞争的提供者聚集在一起,共享信息并协调护理,以降低成本并提高护理质量。一个意想不到的结果可能是参与者供应商利用ACO结构与商业市场上的健康保险计划进行谈判,从而横向操纵价格。ACO参与者提供者从事反竞争行为的结果将是消费者支付更高的价格和更低的护理质量。因此,横向价格垄断不仅会破坏共享储蓄计划的目标,而且可能会加剧ACA试图解决的问题。这篇研究文章根据过去的政策,探讨了指导方针,重点是联邦贸易委员会和司法部的方法是否适当地平衡了激励提供者参与SSP的需要和防止医疗保健市场贸易限制的需要。首先,我们将了解医疗保健市场的动态以及构成美国反垄断法的法律体系。其次,我们将看看过去反托拉斯成文法是如何适用于医疗保健市场的。最后,我们将讨论反垄断政策的显著变化,因为它与ACA下的ACOs有关,以及这些变化是好是坏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accountable Care Organizations: A Balancing Act
In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The ACA has three fundamental goals: (1) Increase access to health care; (2) Reduce the cost of health care; and (3) Improve the quality of health care. To reduce costs and improve quality, section 3022 of the ACA promotes the formation and operation of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to treat Medicare beneficiaries in the new Medicare Shared Savings Program (SSP). ACOs are made up of competing health care providers collaborating to deliver efficient, coordinated care that meets quality performance and cost-saving standards that are determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). ACOs may take many forms, “including networks of individual practices, partnerships, hospitals, [joint ventures] and other health care professionals.” The ACA hopes to encourage new innovative delivery models and does not place heavy restrictions on the form or type of entity sufficient to gain the status of ACO.“It is expected that most health care providers that form ACOs for Medicare beneficiaries will also seek to use the ACO structure for their commercially-insured patients.” In order to produce cost-saving efficiencies, ACOs will look to negotiate contracts between their participating providers, including price terms. ACOs negotiating with private payers raises antitrust concerns over possible price fixing and exercise of market power to restrain trade. ACO practices that restrain trade would undermine the ACA’s attempt to reduce costs and improve quality by further impairing the health care market and harming consumers/patients.In 2011, CMS published the final rule implementing section 3022 of the ACA which creates the Medicare Shared Savings Program and encourages the creation of ACOs. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are the two government agencies charged with enforcing antitrust law. The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice have recently published guidance laying out antitrust enforcement as it relates to Accountable Care Organizations.There are three significant developments that flow from the guidance: 1) ACOs engaged in joint price negotiations with commercial health plans will be treated under the “rule of reason” if the ACO meets CMS’ eligibility standards for SSP participation; 2) ACOs that control up to 30% of market shares in any of its “common services” will be protected by a “safety zone” which shields the ACO from antitrust challenge absent extraordinary circumstances and 3) the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice scrapped a mandatory review of ACOs that might wield market power and replaced it with a voluntary review process that can help ACOs that fall outside the safety zone to better assess its chances of raising antitrust concerns.As mentioned, collaboration between competing providers in ACOs raises antitrust concerns that providers may engage in horizontal price-fixing or exercise market power by setting supracompetitive prices for their services in the commercial market. Horizontal price-fixing violates section 1 of the Sherman Act. Horizontal price-fixing occurs when competitors agree on prices, allowing the competitors to raise prices to supracompetitive levels and possibly shield themselves from competition. ACOs bring competing providers together to share information and coordinate care in order to lower costs and improve the quality of care. An unintended outcome could be horizontal price-fixing by participant providers who use the ACO structure to negotiate with health insurance plans in the commercial market. The result of ACO participant providers engaging in anticompetitive behavior would be higher prices for consumers and lower quality of care. Thus, horizontal price-fixing threatens not only to undermine the goals of the Shared Savings Program, but to possibly exacerbate the very problems that the ACA attempts to solve.This research article explores the guidance, in light of past policy, with a focus on whether the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice’s approach properly balances the need to incentivize provider participation in the SSP and the need to prevent restraint of trade in the health care markets. First, we will look at the dynamics of the health care market and the body of law that make up American antitrust law. Second, we will look at how the antitrust statutory law has been applied to the health care market in the past. Finally, we will address the marked changes in antitrust policy as it relates to ACOs under the ACA and whether or not these perceived changes are for the better or the worse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信