The CMS released the final rule on ACOs yesterday. So far the industry response has been largely positive, if a little guarded as people sort through the details. Most are giving CMS high marks for thoroughly considering the 1,300 or so comments submitted in response to the draft rule. Here's a breakdown of some of the coverage:
From post-acute and long-term care:
- McKnight's praises CMS for easing initial requirements and timelines for providers to participate, as well as for sweetening the incentives under the shared savings program.
- Long-Term Living Magazine also reports the news as positive, closing with this conditionally supportive statement from the AHCA: “We support the concepts of ACOs and their intended purpose, and certainly want to ensure skilled nursing and post-acute facilities are part of the cost-saving model. We’ll be examining the details in the coming days and weeks to ensure our sector can play an important role moving forward.”
- And Patrick Connole from Provider Magazine provides additional details, noting that the final rule reduces the number of quality measures from 65 to 33 and eliminates the electronic health records requirement.
Other perspectives:
- Cheryl Clark from HealthLeaders Media posts an extensive summary and analysis, again with largely positive initial reactions from several sectors of healthcare. Clark does note one negative response from prominent provider alliance Premier Inc. related to beneficiaries being able to participate without sharing data. Even so, Premier's complete response to the final rule praises much more than it criticizes.
- Healthcare IT News focuses its coverage on the lifting of the much-maligned EHR requirement, which in the draft rule called for “50 percent of primary care physicians [to] be defined as meaningful users by start of second performance year.” The final rule has makes it “no longer a condition of participation.” The article goes on to quotes that the final rule “retained EHR as a quality measure but weighted higher than any other measure for quality-scoring purposes.” Some had cited the initial requirement as being too nebulous and onerous to allow ACOs to get off the ground.