Skip to main content

Repost: What Nurse Practitioners MUST Know About ACOs

With all the recent discussion on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) being heard before the Supreme Court, I wanted to discuss one of the programs that was borne from the ACA. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) define Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) as "... groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, who come together voluntarily to give coordinated high quality care to their Medicare patients. The goal of coordinated care is to ensure that patients, especially the chronically ill, get the right care at the right time, while avoiding unnecessary duplication of services and preventing medical errors."
Wow, this sounds great so far, and seems to be congruent with nurse practitioner-partnered care, what could be wrong with this model? Read on.
The "ACO Professional" is defined, "...as a physician (as defined in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act) or a practitioner described in section 1842(b)(18)(C)(i) the Act (that is, a physician assistant, nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist (as defined in section 1861(aa)(5) of the Act))."
Wow, a win-win all around - a new model of care that is coordinated to reduce waste and duplication, utilizes nurse practitioners and is part of federal legislation. What's the catch?
It is embedded here in the Federal Register:
Thus, although the statute defines the term ‘‘ACO professional’’ to include both physicians and non-physician practitioners, such as advance practice nurses, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, for purposes of beneficiary assignment to an ACO, the statute requires that we consider only beneficiaries’ utilization of primary care services provided by ACO professionals who are physicians. The method of assigning beneficiaries therefore must take into account the beneficiaries’ utilization of primary care services rendered by physicians. Therefore, for purposes of the Shared Savings Program, the inclusion of practitioners described in section 1842(b)(18)(C)(i) of the Act, such as PAs and NPs in the statutory definition of the term ‘‘ACO professional’’ is a factor in determining the entities that are eligible for participation in the program (for example, ‘‘ACO professionals in group practice arrangements’’ in section 1899(b)(1)(A) of the Act). However, assignment of beneficiaries to ACOs is to be determined only on the basis of primary care services provided by ACO professionals who are physicians.
Did you catch that? Yes, that's right, while NPs are included as "ACO Professionals," if a Medicare patient utilizes a nurse practitioner as their provider, they are not eligible to participate in the ACO unless the beneficiary is assigned to a physician. If that seems non-sensical to you, that's because it is.
So what can NP practices do who want to participate in this money saving model of care (where half of the savings are reaped by the practice)? Unfortunately, the public comment period has closed on this issue. Right now, if an NP-owned practice wanted to participate in a similar type of shared savings model, they would have had to apply for a grant under the CMS Innovation Program and hope to get a similar award for what an ACO would bring. That deadline was due in January and the actual awards should be announced any day.
This is where NPs get shut out of the system. Yes, NPs may participate in an ACO, will improve care, reduce costs and duplication, but the only party benefitting is the physician or hospital-owned ACO. We must let our representatives know how backwards this is. The national nurse practitioner organizations have weighed in on this issue via the NP Roundtable but nothing has really changed. Doesn't seem fair, does it?

Comments

Unknown said…
It drives me crazy when they restrict access to NPs when the studies show that we are improving health care!
Anonymous said…
This is ridiculous, but not surprising. It is also unfortunate as it s undermining the legitimacy of independent NP practice, and restricting access to NP care (how can a pt choose a NP if their care will not be financially covered)? This also is another means of keeping NP's as invisible providers..........such legislation is simply hindering quality patient care.
hiremehealth said…
This sounds great so far, and seems to be congruent with nurse practitioner-partnered care..
CNA said…
I think this is great. I have been a CNA for 5 years and going to school to become a nurse practitioner...can't wait!
Become CNA said…
There are certainly a lot you have to know about when you are a nurse practitioner. I admire people in this industry.

Popular posts from this blog

Guest Post: The Pros and Cons of Legal Nurse Consulting

The Pros and Cons of Legal Nurse Consulting I’ve spent years pursuing different avenues in the health care industry. I spent my high school years studying to become a CAN, I was at one point a EMT, and I eventually turned to alternative practices like massage therapy, herbs and general fitness and nutrition. Not long ago, though, I heard a term that was relatively new to me – legal nurse consulting. My aunt told me about her pursuit of a legal nurse consulting certification. Her goal was to pass the certification exam and open her own business, partnering with lawyers around the country to help them understand medical charts and the medical profession as a whole. Sounds great, right? I’m wondering if it really is. I urge anyone who is considering legal nurse consulting to consider the pros and cons. While it is certainly an admiral and profitable career path, it may limit your future choices. First of all, legal nurse consulting is not a get-rich-quick solution to your problems. If you

NP Residency

The healthcare system of today is so complex yet so dysfunctional that I believe the time has come to educate and train the NP providers of tomorrow in a way that is reflective of that complexity. We have done a good job up to this point but need to bring that to the next level. Residency. I'm not necessarily referring to the typical residency training of physicians which takes place in hospitals but a residency-type of program in an out-patient setting (ironic that we use the term residency). We realize that healthcare is not exclusively delivered in hospitals. It takes place in independent providers offices, in community health centers, in mobile health vans, and in retail settings. It takes place in people's homes and places of employment. It takes place in many of the health decisions that we make on a daily basis. I found this NP residency program in Connecticut that claims to be the first NP residency in the US. The programs admits 4 NPs each year and trains them to ha

Private Practice

There is an interesting trend that I'm observing and don't necessarily see how this is going to turn out. I'm seeing more and more nurse practitioner's opening their own autonomous practices. Many of these offices set out to offer care that is personalized, covered under insurance, and of course high-quality. I'm also seeing more NP specialty/sub-specialty practices such as house calls, incontinence, and women's health. This is in a time when more physician practices are joining together in these conglomerations that aren't necessarily tied to hospitals. You'd be hard pressed to find a solo primary care physician these days yet nurse practitioner solo practices are popping up. The talk about the formation of accountable care organizations can be attributed to health care reform and the spurring of large multi-physician practices. What to make of this? I honestly don't know. Many people and patients have said to me "you should start your own prac