Aetna’s Dr. Kennedy Opens the Health Plan ACO-Strategy Kimono | Healthcare Informatics Magazine | Health IT | Information Technology Skip to content Skip to navigation

Aetna’s Dr. Kennedy Opens the Health Plan ACO-Strategy Kimono

October 14, 2014
by Mark Hagland
| Reprints
What does it mean when a prominent health insurer picks sole integrated health systems to partner with in individual healthcare markets?

In the business world, one often hears the phrase “opening the kimono,” in the context of any businessperson or entity openly sharing their strategy with another businessperson or entity. Well, that’s pretty much what Charles Kennedy, M.D., did last week when he delivered a keynote address at the Health IT Summit in Washington, sponsored by the Institute for Health Technology Transformation (iHT2), a sister organization of Healthcare Informatics.

Dr. Kennedy, the CEO of the rapidly growing and evolving Aetna Accountable Care Solutions organization, a division of the Hartford, Conn.-based mega-insurer Aetna, delivered a keynote presentation entitled “Building a Sustainable ACO: Strategies for Success,” on Oct. 8, at the Westin Arlington Gateway.

Dr. Kennedy is a gifted thinker and speaker, and his presentation was clear, articulate, and thought-provoking.

The core contention of his speech—that health plans and integrated (hospital-based) health systems need to partner together to improve clinical outcomes and reduce cost and over-utilization—was exceedingly uncontroversial. In theory, it would be hard to find anyone to disagree with it.

“We try to forge collaborations,” Kennedy emphasized in his keynote address. “And the idea is that the payer has a certain set of expertise, and the payer has a certain set of expertise. And if we can come together, we should be able to reduce the risk associated with the transition from volume to value, for providers. But that is no small task: if you think of a health plan’s role, how does the provider see us? Denied claims, pre-authorization hassles, denials for not using prescribed processes… but moving towards value, the incentives become aligned. If you give folks the right incentives, they’ll cost less,” he emphasized. Kennedy conceded that inevitably, efficiency improvements will lead to “creating slack in your delivery system; there are going to be fewer days per 1,000, and shorter lengths of stay.”

But here’s where things got interesting. Dr. Kennedy noted that when Aetna partners with a provider organization, it will help that provider organization to deploy data analytics and population health strategies and solutions that will help to close the revenue gap created by efficiency improvement, and it will work intensively with that provider to help provider leaders merge clinical and claims data in order to improve clinical and financial outcomes. “The real differentiator of what we do versus what a lot of technology vendors do,” he told his audience, “is that we’re driving a specific value of the overlying price. When our actuaries do the analysis and say if we were able to deliver a product, the cost would be $350 PMPM [per member per month]. But if you were able to implement an HIE [health information exchange] [and get your physicians to use it, especially in the ED, and you participated with us in studies of avoidable ED visits, for instance, and collaborated with us in disease management programs, we could help bring the per member per month costs down considerably and make disease management programs effective.” Given all those supports, he said, “A health plan can go from $350 PMPM to $310 PMPM, and that $40 PMPM can help offset losses from reduced utilization” incurred by the provider.

In particular, Kennedy cited the collaboration with the Falls Church, Va.-based, five-hospital Inova Health System as a key example of Aetna’s success in collaborating with integrated delivery systems nationwide. “Here in the DC area, Inova is the dominant delivery system in the area, with north of 60 percent market share, and Aetna and Inova developed a shared savings program,” he noted.

“We launched Innovation Health Plan, built from the ground up. It has products sold on the public and private exchanges,” he said. “And they’re price-leading products. It was successful in that, within the first year of operations, we grew up 140,000—that’s outstanding growth. And virus the Blues plan, we sold one to one in this geography, and were profitable in our first year of operations. Why was it successful? A lot of it began with the commitment from both organizations to collaboration and to data-sharing; but also, we created shared financial incentives.”

So this is where maybe things do get a tiny bit controversial. After all, one can ask the very fundamental question, should health plans be in the business of choosing a single large integrated system to partner with in a particular healthcare market, and then essentially give that patient care organization all the advantages it possibly can against its competitors?

I am not for one moment suggesting that Aetna is alone in its perspective on this. There are partnerships like this emerging all across the country. But it does add a new spin to the “quasi-monopoly” discussion that’s been taking place in healthcare for years, in which industry observers have noted that there has been a constant teeter-totter dynamic going on in markets across the country, in which patient care organizations consolidate, and then health plans consolidate—or vice-versa—and that leads to a continuous cycle of “arms buildup” between the two types of entities. It’s happening everywhere now.

But when one very large health insurer teams up with one market-dominant provider system in one market, does that make things better? One could look at it all sorts of ways.


Get the latest information on Health IT and attend other valuable sessions at this two-day Summit providing healthcare leaders with educational content, insightful debate and dialogue on the future of healthcare and technology.

Learn More



Great piece on Dr. Kennedy's presentation. It reminded me of some interviews I did in January of this year for one of our articles on blending claims and clinical data. As I wrote then, although data-sharing between payers and providers is on the increase, there is still tension in the relationship.

Here are a few brief excerpts from those interviews:

“The single biggest challenge in negotiating agreements on new types of contracts is who has access to what data, and there is something of a data grab under way,” said Keith Figlioli, senior vice president of healthcare informatics for the Premier Healthcare Alliance.

“We have concerns about giving the data to payers, because then the payers are controlling the care processes. I think that for the population health component, where you are getting paid for outcomes, you should control the data repository.” He says his organization counsels its provider organization members that they should own their own data warehouse and analysis infrastructure. (Premier has an enterprise data warehouse offering in the cloud for members.)

One physician executive who agrees with Figlioli is Scott Hines, M.D., co-chief clinical transformation officer for Crystal Run Healthcare, a multispecialty physician organization in the mid-Hudson Valley of New York that is one of the fastest growing accountable care organizations (ACOs) in the country. “You don’t want to be at the mercy of trusting data that is provided to you. You need the ability to do the analyses yourself,” he says.

Beyond the issues they mention are the ones you raise about quasi-monopolies dominating markets. Integrated health systems are great as far as efficiency goes, but they could raise other economic issues....