Value-Based Payment Insights and Support for Providers

LEAD acceptance letters are out, the Participant TIN list is due to CMS in early August, and the financial methodology that governs how shared savings and payments work is expected later this summer. Many organizations have applied to participate in both LEAD and MSSP and now must choose between them before the final rules are known. This second paper in Wakely’s ACO Risk Mitigation Strategies series, developed with Josh Gottesman of Brown & Brown, argues that the choice is fundamentally a risk and capital decision, not a program name decision, and that certainty is not the prerequisite for moving forward, coverage is. An ACO that has determined its downside risk and arranged protection can enter LEAD without full confidence in the final methodology because it has covered the outcomes it cannot yet model. The paper defines where LEAD concentrates that risk: first-dollar exposure with no MSR or MLR buffer, a benchmark discount under the Global option, and a financial guarantee of 2.0 to 4.0 percent of prior Part A and B expenditures, several times the approximately 1.0 percent repayment mechanism MSSP requires. It also makes the case for engaging an independent actuary and an independent broker before the methodology drops and a thin market of aggregate coverage carriers fills up. The practical takeaway is simple: Every ACO entering LEAD should at least price aggregate coverage and a financial guarantee. Asking costs nothing, commits to nothing, and converts a decision made in the dark into one made with numbers.