Search

Objective: To characterize the development and performance of a cataract surgery episode-based cost measure for the Medicare Quality Payment Program. Design: Claims-based analysis. Participants: Medicare clinicians with cataract surgery claims between June 1, 2016, and May 31, 2017. Methods: We 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 Measures: Episode costs with and without complications, clinician-dependent variation (proportion of total cost variance), and proportion of costs from cataract surgery-related clinical themes. Results: We 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). Conclusions: The 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 Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Study Objective: The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) program was intended to align CMS quality and incentive programs. To date, no reports have described anesthesia clinician performance in the first two years of the program., Design: Observational retrospective cohort study., Setting: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services public datasets for their Quality Payment Program., Patients: Anesthesia clinicians who participated in MIPS for 2017 and 2018 performance years., Interventions: Descriptive statistics compared anesthesia clinician characteristics, practice setting, and MIPS performance between the two years to determine associations with MIPS-based payment adjustments., Measurements: Logistic regression identified independent predictors of bonus payments for exceptional performance., Main Results: Compared with participants in 2017 (n = 25,604), participants in 2018 (n = 54,381) had a higher proportion of reporting through groups and alternative payment models (APMs) than as individuals (p < 0.001). The proportion of clinicians earning performance bonuses increased from 2017 to 2018 except for those MIPS participants reporting as individuals. Median total MIPS scores were higher in 2018 than 2017 (84.6 vs. 82.4, p < 0.001), although median total scores fell for participants reporting as individuals (40.9 vs 75.5, p < 0.001). Among clinicians with scores in both years (n = 20,490), 10,559 (51.3%) improved their total score between 2017 and 2018, and 347 (1.7%) changed reporting from individual to APM. Reporting as an individual compared with group reporting (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.80; p < 0.001) was associated with lower rates of bonus payments, as was having a greater proportion of patients dual-eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. Reporting through an APM (OR: 149.6; 95% CI: 110 to 203.4; p < 0.001) and increasing practice group size were associated with higher likelihood of bonus payments., Conclusions: Anesthesia clinician MIPS participation and performance were strong during 2017 and 2018 performance years. Providers who reported through groups or APMs have a higher likelihood of receiving bonus payments., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act established the Quality Payment Program (QPP), which mandates that physicians who meet the threshold in volume of Medicare patients for whom they care participate in this program through either advanced Alternative Payment Models or the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System. Anticipating physicians' concerns regarding the burden of implementing the QPP, feedback from physicians became a critical component of the continued implementation process in 2018. The purpose of this review is to inform hand surgeons regarding the current QPP (early 2019) and for future observation periods., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Telehealth offers an innovative approach to improve heart failure care that expands beyond traditional management strategies. Yet the use of telehealth in heart failure is infrequent because of several obstacles. Fundamentally, the evidence is inconsistent across studies of telehealth interventions in heart failure, which limits the ability of cardiologists to make general conclusions. Where encouraging evidence exists, there are logistical challenges to broad-scale implementation as a result of insufficient understanding of how to transform telemedicine strategies into clinical practice effectively. Ultimately, when implementation is reasonable, the application of these efforts remains hampered by regulatory, reimbursement, and other policy issues. The primary aim of this paper is to describe these challenges and to outline a path forward to apply telehealth approaches to heart failure in conjunction with payment reform and pragmatic research study design., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)