Project description:BackgroundThe Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the largest national pay-for-performance program and the first to afford emergency clinicians unique financial incentives for quality measurement and improvement. With little known regarding its impact on emergency clinicians, we sought to describe participation in the MIPS and examine differences in performance scores and payment adjustments based on reporting affiliation and reporting strategy.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2018 Quality Payment Program (QPP) Experience Report data set. We categorized emergency clinicians by their reporting affiliation (individual, group, MIPS alternative payment model [APM]), MIPS performance scores, and Medicare Part B payment adjustments. We calculated performance scores for common quality measures contributing to the quality category score if reported through qualified clinical data registries (QCDRs) or claims-based reporting strategies.ResultsIn 2018, a total of 59,828 emergency clinicians participated in the MIPS-1,246 (2.1%) reported as individuals, 43,404 (72.5%) reported as groups, and 15,178 (25.4%) reported within MIPS APMs. Clinicians reporting as individuals earned lower overall MIPS scores (median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 30.8 [15.0-48.2] points) than those reporting within groups (median [IQR] = 88.4 [49.3-100.0]) and MIPS APMs (median [IQR] = 100.0 [100.0-100.0]; p < 0.001) and more frequently incurred penalties with a negative payment adjustment. Emergency clinicians had higher measure scores if reporting QCDR or QPP non-emergency medicine specialty set measures.ConclusionsEmergency clinician participation in national value-based programs is common, with one in four participating through MIPS APMs. Those employing specific strategies such as QCDR and group reporting received the highest MIPS scores and payment adjustments, emphasizing the role that reporting strategy and affiliation play in the quality of care.

Project description:ImportanceIntegration of physician practices into health systems composed of hospitals and multispecialty practices is increasing in the era of value-based payment. It is unknown how clinicians who affiliate with such health systems perform under the new mandatory Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) relative to their peers.ObjectiveTo assess the relationship between the health system affiliations of clinicians and their performance scores and value-based reimbursement under the 2019 MIPS.Design, setting, and participantsPublicly reported data on 636 552 clinicians working at outpatient clinics across the US were used to assess the association of the affiliation status of clinicians within the 609 health systems with their 2019 final MIPS performance score and value-based reimbursement (both based on clinician performance in 2017), adjusting for clinician, patient, and practice area characteristics.ExposuresHealth system affiliation vs no affiliation.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was final MIPS performance score (range, 0-100; higher scores intended to represent better performance). The secondary outcome was MIPS payment adjustment, including negative (penalty) payment adjustment, positive payment adjustment, and bonus payment adjustment.ResultsThe final sample included 636 552 clinicians (41% female, 83% physicians, 50% in primary care, 17% in rural areas), including 48.6% who were affiliated with a health system. Compared with unaffiliated clinicians, system-affiliated clinicians were significantly more likely to be female (46% vs 37%), primary care physicians (36% vs 30%), and classified as safety net clinicians (12% vs 10%) and significantly less likely to be specialists (44% vs 55%) (P < .001 for each). The mean final MIPS performance score for system-affiliated clinicians was 79.0 vs 60.3 for unaffiliated clinicians (absolute mean difference, 18.7 [95% CI, 18.5 to 18.8]). The percentage receiving a negative (penalty) payment adjustment was 2.8% for system-affiliated clinicians vs 13.7% for unaffiliated clinicians (absolute difference, -10.9% [95% CI, -11.0% to -10.7%]), 97.1% vs 82.6%, respectively, for those receiving a positive payment adjustment (absolute difference, 14.5% [95% CI, 14.3% to 14.6%]), and 73.9% vs 55.1% for those receiving a bonus payment adjustment (absolute difference, 18.9% [95% CI, 18.6% to 19.1%]).Conclusions and relevanceClinician affiliation with a health system was associated with significantly better 2019 MIPS performance scores. Whether this represents differences in quality of care or other factors requires additional research.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveThe Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the largest quality payment program administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Little is known about predictors of nephrologist performance in MIPS.Study designCross-sectional analysis.Setting & participantsNephrologists participating in MIPS in performance year 2018.PredictorsNephrologist characteristics: (1) participation type (individual, group, or MIPS alternative payment model [APM]), (2) practice size, (3) practice setting (rural, Health Professional Shortage Area [HPSA], or hospital based), and (4) geography (Census Division).OutcomesMIPS Final, Quality, Promoting Interoperability, Improvement Activities, and Cost scores. Using published consensus ratings, we also examined the validity of MIPS Quality measures selected by nephrologists.Analytical approachUnadjusted and multivariable-adjusted linear regression models assessing the associations between nephrologist characteristics and MIPS Final scores.ResultsAmong 6,117 nephrologists participating in MIPS in 2018, the median MIPS Final score was 100 (interquartile range, 94-100). In multivariable-adjusted analyses, MIPS APM participation was associated with a 12.5-point (95% CI, 10.6-14.4) higher score compared with individual participation. Nephrologists in large (355-4,294 members) and medium (15-354 members) practices scored higher than those in small practices (1-14 members). In analyses adjusted for practice size, practice setting, and geography, among individual and group participants, HPSA nephrologists scored 1.9 (95% CI, -3.6 to -0.1) points lower than non-HPSA nephrologists, and hospital-based nephrologists scored 6.0 (95% CI, -8.3 to -3.7) points lower than non-hospital-based nephrologists. The most frequently reported quality measures by individual and group participants had medium to high validity and were relevant to nephrology care, whereas MIPS APM measures had little relevance to nephrology.LimitationsLack of adjustment for patient characteristics.ConclusionsMIPS APM participation, larger practice size, non-HPSA setting, and non-hospital-based setting were associated with higher MIPS scores among nephrologists. Our results inform strategies to improve MIPS program design and generate meaningful distinctions between practices that will drive improvements in care.

Project description:ImportanceThe Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) for Medicare is the largest pay-for-performance program in the history of health care. Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the MIPS in 2017, the participation and performance of otolaryngologists in this program remain unclear.ObjectiveTo characterize otolaryngologist participation and performance in the MIPS in 2017.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cross-sectional analysis of otolaryngologist participation and performance in the MIPS from January 1 through December 31, 2017, using the publicly available CMS Physician Compare 2017 eligible clinician public reporting database.Main outcomes and measuresThe number and proportion of active otolaryngologists who participated in the MIPS in 2017 were determined. Overall 2017 MIPS payment adjustments received by participants were determined and stratified by reporting affiliation (individual, group, or alternative payment model [APM]). Payment adjustments were categorized based on overall MIPS performance scores in accordance with CMS methodology: penalty (<3 points), no payment adjustment (3 points), positive adjustment (between 3 and 70 points), or bonus for exceptional performance (≥70 points).ResultsIn 2017, CMS required 6512 of 9526 (68.4%) of active otolaryngologists to participate in the MIPS. Among these otolaryngologists, 5840 (89.7%) participated; 672 (10.3%) abstained and thus incurred penalties (-4% payment adjustment). The 6512 participating otolaryngologists reported MIPS data as individuals (1990 [30.6%]), as groups (3033 [46.6%]), and through CMS-designated APMs (964 [14.8%]). The majority (4470 of 5840 [76.5%]) received bonuses (maximum payment adjustment, +1.9%) for exceptional performance, while a minority received only a positive payment adjustment (1006 of 5840 [17.2%]) or did not receive an adjustment (364 of 5840 [6.2%]). Whereas nearly all otolaryngologists reporting data via APMs (936 of 964 [97.1%]) earned bonuses for exceptional performance, fewer than 70% of otolaryngologists reporting data as individuals (1124 of 1990 [56.5%]) or groups (2050 of 3033 [67.6%]) earned such bonuses. Of note, nearly all otolaryngologists incurring penalties (658 of 672 [97.9%]) were affiliated with groups.Conclusions and relevanceMost otolaryngologists participating in the 2017 MIPS received performance bonuses, although variation exists within the field. As CMS continues to reform the MIPS and raise performance thresholds, otolaryngologists should consider adopting measures to succeed in the era of value-based care.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a new, mandatory, outpatient value-based payment program that ties reimbursement to performance on cost and quality measures for many US clinicians. However, it is currently unknown how the program measures the performance of psychiatrists, who often treat a different patient case mix with different clinical considerations than do other outpatient clinicians.ObjectiveTo compare performance scores and value-based reimbursement for psychiatrists vs other outpatient physicians in the 2020 MIPS.Design setting and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Data Catalog was used to identify outpatient Medicare physicians listed in the National Downloadable File between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, who participated in the 2020 MIPS and received a publicly reported final performance score. Data from the 593 863 clinicians participating in the 2020 MIPS were used to compare differences in the 2020 MIPS performance scores and value-based reimbursement (based on performance in 2018) for psychiatrists vs other physicians, adjusting for physician, patient, and practice area characteristics.ExposuresParticipation in MIPS.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were final MIPS performance score and negative (penalty), positive, and exceptional performance bonus payment adjustments. Secondary outcomes were scores in the MIPS performance domains: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and cost.ResultsThis study included 9356 psychiatrists (3407 [36.4%] female and 5 949 [63.6%] male) and 196 306 other outpatient physicians (69 221 [35.3%] female and 127 085 [64.7%] male) (data on age and race are not available). Compared with other physicians, psychiatrists were less likely to be affiliated with a safety-net hospital (2119 [22.6%] vs 64 997 [33.1%]) or a major teaching hospital (2148 [23.0%] vs 53 321 [27.2%]) and had lower annual Medicare patient volume (181 vs 437 patients) and mean patient risk scores (1.65 vs 1.78) (P < .001 for all). The mean final MIPS performance score for psychiatrists was 84.0 vs 89.7 for other physicians (absolute difference, -5.7; 95% CI, -6.2 to -5.2). A total of 573 psychiatrists (6.1%) received a penalty vs 5739 (2.9%) of other physicians (absolute difference, 3.2%; 95% CI, 2.8%-3.6%); 8664 psychiatrists (92.6%) vs 189 037 other physicians (96.3%) received a positive payment adjustment (absolute difference, -3.7%; 95% CI, -3.3% to -4.1%), and 7672 psychiatrists (82.0%) vs 174 040 other physicians (88.7%) received a bonus payment adjustment (absolute difference, -6.7%; 95% CI, -6.0% to -7.3%). These differences remained significant after adjustment.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study that compared US psychiatrists with other outpatient physicians, psychiatrists had significantly lower 2020 MIPS performance scores, were penalized more frequently, and received fewer bonuses. Policy makers should evaluate whether current MIPS performance measures appropriately assess the performance of psychiatrists.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), a public reporting and pay-for-performance program, adjusts clinician payments based on publicly reported measures that are chosen primarily by clinicians or their practices. However, measure selection raises concerns that practices could earn bonuses or avoid penalties by selecting measures on which they already perform well, rather than by improving care-a form of gaming. This has prompted calls for mandatory reporting on a smaller set of measures including patient experiences.ObjectivesWithin precursor programs of the MIPS, this study examined 1) practices' selection of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) patient experience measures for quality scoring under pay-for-performance and 2) the association between mandated public reporting on CAHPS measures and performance on those measures.Design setting and participantsThis study included 2 analyses. The first analysis examined the association between the baseline CAHPS scores of large practices (≥100 clinicians) and practices' selection of these measures for quality scoring under pay-for-performance up to 2 years later. The second analysis examined changes in patient experiences associated with a requirement that large practices publicly report CAHPS measures starting in 2014. A difference-in-differences analysis of 2012-2017 fee-for-service Medicare CAHPS data was conducted to compare changes in patient experiences between large practices (111-150 clinicians) that became subject to this reporting mandate and smaller unaffected practices (50-89 clinicians). Analyses were conducted between October 1, 2020 and July 30, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresCAHPS measures.ResultsAmong 301 large practices that publicly reported patient experience measures, the mean age of patients at baseline was 71.6 years (interquartile range [IQR] across practices: 70.4-73.2 years) and 55.8% of patients were female (IQR: 54.3%-57.7%). Large practices in the top vs. bottom quintile of patient experience scores at baseline were more likely to voluntarily include these scores in the pay-for-performance program two years later (96.3% vs. 67.9%), a difference of 28.4 percentage points (95% CI: 9.4,47.5 percentage points; P=0.004). After 2-3 years of the reporting mandate, patient experiences did not differentially improve in affected vs. unaffected practices (difference-in-differences estimate: -0.03 practice-level standard deviations of the composite score; 95% CI: -0.64,0.58; P=0.92).ConclusionsIn this study of US physician practices that participated in precursors of the MIPS, large practices were found to select measures on which they were already performing well for a pay-for-performance program, consistent with gaming. However, mandating public reporting was not associated with improved patient experiences. These findings support recommendations to end optional measures in the MIPS but also suggest that public reporting on mandated measures may not improve care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize the development and performance of a cataract surgery episode-based cost measure for the Medicare Quality Payment Program.DesignClaims-based analysis.ParticipantsMedicare clinicians with cataract surgery claims between June 1, 2016, and May 31, 2017.MethodsWe limited the analysis to claims with procedure code 66984 (routine cataract surgery), excluding cases with relevant ocular comorbidities. We divided episodes into subgroups by surgery location (Ambulatory Surgery Center [ASC] or Hospital Outpatient Department [HOPD]) and laterality (bilateral when surgeries were within 30 days apart). For the episode-based cost measure, we calculated costs occurring between 60 days before surgery and 90 days after surgery, limited to services identified by an expert committee as related to cataract surgery and under the influence of the cataract surgeon. We attributed costs to the clinician submitting the cataract surgery claim, categorized costs into clinical themes, and calculated episode cost distribution, reliability in detecting clinician-dependent cost variation, and costs with versus without complications. We compared episode-based cost scores with hypothetical "nonselective" cost scores (total Medicare beneficiary costs between 60 days before surgery and 90 days after surgery).Main outcome measuresEpisode costs with and without complications, clinician-dependent variation (proportion of total cost variance), and proportion of costs from cataract surgery-related clinical themes.ResultsWe identified 583 356 cataract surgery episodes attributed to 10 790 clinicians and 8189 with ≥ 10 episodes during the measurement period. Most surgeries were performed in an ASC (71%) and unilateral (66%). The mean episode cost was $2876. The HOPD surgeries had higher costs; geography and episodes per clinician did not substantially affect costs. The proportion of cost variation from clinician-dependent factors was higher in episode-based compared with nonselective cost measures (94% vs. 39%), and cataract surgery-related clinical themes represented a higher proportion of total costs for episode-based measures. Episodes with complications had higher costs than episodes without complications ($3738 vs. $2276).ConclusionsThe cataract surgery episode-based cost measure performs better than a comparable nonselective measure based on cost distribution, clinician-dependent variance, association with cataract surgery-related clinical themes, and quality alignment (higher costs in episodes with complications). Cost measure maintenance and refinement will be important to maintain clinical validity and reliability.Financial disclosuresProprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a major Medicare value-based payment program aimed at improving quality and reducing costs. Little is known about how physicians' performance varies by social risk of their patients.ObjectiveTo determine the relationship between patient social risk and physicians' scores in the first year of MIPS.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of physicians participating in MIPS in 2017.ExposuresPhysicians in the highest quintile of proportion of dually eligible patients served; physicians in the 3 middle quintiles; and physicians in the lowest quintile.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the 2017 composite MIPS score (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better performance). Payment rates were adjusted -4% to 4% based on scores.ResultsThe final sample included 284 544 physicians (76.1% men, 60.1% with ≥20 years in practice, 11.9% in rural location, 26.8% hospital-based, and 24.6% in primary care). The mean composite MIPS score was 73.3. Physicians in the highest risk quintile cared for 52.0% of dually eligible patients; those in the 3 middle risk quintiles, 21.8%; and those in the lowest risk quintile, 6.6%. After adjusting for medical complexity, the mean MIPS score for physicians in the highest risk quintile (64.7) was lower relative to scores for physicians in the middle 3 (75.4) and lowest (75.9) risk quintiles (difference for highest vs middle 3, -10.7 [95% CI, -11.0 to -10.4]; highest vs lowest, -11.2 [95% CI, -11.6 to -10.8]; P < .001). This relationship was found across specialties except psychiatry. Compared with physicians in the lowest risk quintile, physicians in the highest risk quintile were more likely to work in rural areas (12.7% vs 6.4%; difference, 6.3 percentage points [95% CI, 6.0 to 6.7]; P < .001) but less likely to care for more than 1000 Medicare beneficiaries (9.4% vs 17.8%; difference, -8.3 percentage points [95% CI, -8.7 to -8.0]; P < .001) or to have more than 20 years in practice (56.7% vs 70.6%; difference, -13.9 percentage points [95% CI, -14.4 to -13.3]; P < .001). For physicians in the highest risk quintile, several characteristics were associated with higher MIPS scores, including practicing in a larger group (mean score, 82.4 for more than 50 physicians vs 46.1 for 1-5 physicians; difference, 36.2 [95% CI, 35.3 to 37.2]; P < .001) and reporting through an alternative payment model (mean score, 79.5 for alternative payment model vs 59.9 for reporting as individual; difference, 19.7 [95% CI, 18.9 to 20.4]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional analysis of physicians who participated in the first year of the Medicare MIPS program, physicians with the highest proportion of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid had significantly lower MIPS scores compared with other physicians. Further research is needed to understand the reasons underlying the differences in physician MIPS scores by levels of patient social risk.

Dataset Information

Association of Clinician Minority Patient Caseload With Performance in the 2019 Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

Publications

Association of Clinician Minority Patient Caseload With Performance in the 2019 Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets