This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
What's the difference between an ACO and an HMO?
Should there be two pages, one for ACO and one for HMO? Supposedly Kaiser is an ACO according to this page but go to the Kaiser page and it says that it's an HMO. What's the justification for two pages? TMLutas (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Almost a generation ago, public anger over the incentives that drove some managed-care plans to stint on care led to the downfall of many of them. The design of ACOs is fraught with complexity, which suggests that managed care's failure still lingers in the minds of many policymakers. Although many of them rail against the incentives that drive fee-for-service medicine, their actions underscore a reluctance to abandon it. Their uncertainty stems from the unsettling absence of an acceptable alternative. ACOs are therefore built on a fee-for-service chassis and are not closed networks. CMS states that Medicare beneficiaries will be free to seek care from any provider — which will limit ACOs' ability to fully control the cost and quality of care delivered to their assigned beneficiaries.doi:10.1056/NEJMp1103603
Not really responsive to my question. ACOs by your article seem not to exist yet. So what we've really got are the retreads, the evolved HMOs. For propaganda purposes the administration and allies want there to be a break, but that's a political matter and certainly NOT consistent with NPOV. The other side stresses continuity, again for propaganda purposes. Inconsistently calling something an HMO and an ACO on different pages has to get resolved. I don't see any justification for current practice. TMLutas (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
If ACOs don't exist yet that would be another difference wouldn't it? If you feel so strongly this article is a NPOV violation, you should take it up at the WP:NPOVN. I look forward to seeing that discussion. Jesanj (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
At this point, I view things to be confused, not wrong-headed and in need of some sort of outside intervention. Or are you spoiling for a fight? You're the one bringing up the idea that ACOs aren't in existence. If that's the case, the article should be more future tense oriented, shouldn't it? For instance, instead of a first sentence "An accountable care organization (ACO) is a type of payment and delivery reform model that seeks to tie provider reimbursements to quality metrics and reductions in the total cost of care for an assigned population of patients." you could have "An accountable care organization (ACO) will implement a type of payment and delivery reform model that shall seek to tie provider reimbursements to quality metrics and reductions in the total cost of care for an assigned population of patients. "
What I don't see is the current text being really sustainable without further development. Can we at least agree on that? TMLutas (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)