LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/THE 13 Largest Medical Groups Back Value-Based Medicine
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

THE 13 Largest Medical Groups Back Value-Based Medicine

August 3, 2020 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

THE 13 Largest Medical Groups Back Value-Based Medicine
Source: Pixabay and geralt
Secondary#valuebasedpayment#feeforservice

Almost 40% of healthcare dollars spent in the U.S. are tied in some way to value-based payment and goals. The rest remain under fee-for-service models.

On July 24, 2020, the bipartisan Value in Health Care Act (The Value Act) was introduced in Congress and supported by 13 of the nation’s leading healthcare stakeholders, to accelerate Medicare’s move to value-based payments by improving accountable care organizations (ACOs) and other alternative payment models (APMs).

While value-based payments have grown, ACO’s have not kept pace. According to Clif Gaus, Sc.D., president and CEO of the National Association of ACOs, since Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Serives’s (CMS) ‘Pathways to Success’ changes in 2018, there has been a dramatic decline in the formation of new ACOs and a flattening of ACO participation. “This bill addresses several critical issues that will reignite ACO growth.”

Jeff Micklos, executive director of the Health Care Transformation Task Force, said the health care industry realizes the drawbacks of ongoing reliance on fee-for-service. “The Value Act offers thoughtful reforms to existing value programs and provides meaningful incentives for providers to adopt and succeed in patient-centered alternative payment models.”

The Value Act

The Act, say the groups, “provides appropriate shared savings rates, modifies risk adjustment methodologies, removes barriers to participation, ensures fair and accurate benchmarks, and provides educational and technical support for ACOs.”

Specifically, the proposed legislation increases shared savings rates, updates risk adjustment rules, eliminates the artificial distinction between “high” and “low” revenue ACOs, addresses ACOs’ “rural glitch,” and restarts the ACO Investment Model. The bill also reinforces the shift to value-based care by extending the 5% Advanced APM bonus for an additional six years, modifying the threshold to achieve that 5% bonus, and authorizing a study of the overlap of various Medicare APMs.

The proposal also extends and modifies Advanced APM bonuses and addressing aspects of APM overlap. “These reforms will ensure that value-based care models continue to be viable for physician and hospital participants.”

Advertisement

The 13 groups supporting the Value Act are:

  • American Academy of Family Physicians
  • American College of Physicians
  • American Hospital Association
  • American Medical Association
  • America’s Essential Hospitals
  • America’s Physician Groups
  • AMGA
  • Association of American Medical Colleges
  • Federation of American Hospitals
  • Health Care Transformation Task Force
  • Medical Group Management Association
  • National Association of ACOs
  • Premier

The news is not that The Value Act might become law, as it still requires a long process of House and Senate approvals and a presidential signature. What is noteworthy is that that so many stakeholders are on the same page over value-based payments.

As Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of government affairs for the Medical Group Management Association, wrote: “Medical group practices remain committed to the central tenants of value-based payment reform. This legislation makes important updates to the ACO model and improves upon incentives for participating in value-based reimbursement models.”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy