Search

North Carolina Medicaid's Healthy Opportunities Pilots program is the country's first comprehensive program to evaluate the impact of paying community-based organizations to provide eligible Medicaid enrollees with an array of evidence-based services to address four domains of health-related social needs, one of which is housing. Using a mixed-methods approach, we mapped the distribution of severe housing problems and then examined the design and implementation of Healthy Opportunities Pilots housing services in the three program regions. Four cross-cutting implementation and policy themes emerged: accounting for variation in housing resources and needs to address housing insecurity, defining and pricing housing services in Medicaid, engaging diverse stakeholders across sectors to facilitate successful implementation, and developing sustainable financial models for delivery. The lessons learned and actionable insights can help inform the efforts of stakeholders elsewhere, particularly other state Medicaid programs, to design and implement cross-sectoral programs that address housing-related social needs by leveraging multiple policy-based resources. These lessons can also be useful for federal policy makers developing guidance on addressing housing-related needs in Medicaid.

Care for people living with serious illness is suboptimal for many reasons, including underpayment for key services (such as care coordination and social supports) in fee-for-service reimbursement. Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have potential to improve serious illness care because of their widespread dissemination, strong financial incentives for care coordination in downside-risk models, and flexibility in shared savings spending. Through a national survey we found that 94 percent of ACOs at least partially identify their seriously ill beneficiaries, yet only 8-21 percent have widely implemented serious illness initiatives such as advance care planning or home-based palliative care. We selected six diverse ACOs with successful programs for case studies and interviewed fifty-three leaders and front-line personnel. Cross-cutting themes include the need for up-front investment beyond shared savings to build serious illness infrastructure and workforce; supporting the business case for organizational buy-in; how ACO contract specifications affect savings for serious illness populations; and using data and health information technology to manage populations. We discuss the implications of the recent Medicare ACO regulatory overhaul and other policies related to serious illness quality measures, risk adjustment, attribution methods, supporting rural ACOs, and enhancing timely data access.

The ability of accountable care organizations (ACOs) to continue reducing costs and improving quality depends on understanding what affects their survival. We examined such factors for survival in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) of 624 ACOs between performance years 2013 and 2017 (1,849 ACO-years). Overall, ACO exits from the MSSP decreased after ACOs' third year. Shared-savings bonus payment achievement, more care coordination, higher financial performance benchmarks, market-level Medicare cost growth, lower-risk patients, and contracts with upside-only risk were associated with longer survival. Quality scores, postacute care spending, organizational traits, and most market-context characteristics had no significant association with survival, which indicates that diverse organizations and markets can be successful. Put in context with the recently finalized MSSP rule from December 2018, our findings suggest that while new flexibilities for low-revenue ACOs likely reduce uncertainty for some, MSSP ACOs may need more than the new period of one to three years to prepare for downside risk. Policy makers should offer more support to ACOs (especially those with higher-risk patients) for building organizational competencies and should consider how benchmarking policy can fairly assess ACOs from regions with differing levels of cost growth.

Medicaid programs are increasingly adopting incentive programs to improve health behaviors among beneficiaries. There is limited evidence on what incentives are being offered to Medicaid beneficiaries, how programs are engaging beneficiaries, and how programs are evaluated. In 2017-18 we synthesized available information on these programs and interviewed eighty policy stakeholders to identify the rationale behind key program design decisions and stakeholders' recommendations for beneficiary engagement and program evaluation. Key underlying program rationales included improving the use of preventive services and promoting personal responsibility. Beneficiary engagement strategies emphasized meeting members where they are and offering prizes or services customized for certain groups. Stakeholders recommended collaborating with external evaluators to design and conduct robust evaluations of incentive programs. Finally, stakeholders recommended aligning beneficiary incentives with provider incentives and other payment reforms through the use of common meaningful measures to streamline program evaluation.