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.

The United States population is aging and increasing in comorbidities, and patient care is accordingly growing increasingly complex. Complexity impacts patterns of resource consumption, adverse event and medical error rates, health-related quality of life, physician burnout, and more. Tools capturing complexity can be of benefit in the modern value-based reimbursement landscape and have been well studied in specialties other than dermatology. In this report, we describe the validation of a tool specific to outpatient dermatologic care that captures the complexity of clinical visit medical decision making. We performed a cross-sectional retrospective study to determine the inter-rater reliability and face validity of the tool. By objectively grading a clinical encounter based on clinical complexity, there is increased awareness of opportunities to improve clinical care, and the allocation of health care costs and resources within the dermatologic community can be better assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: After‐hours documentation burden among US clinicians is often uncompensated work and has been associated with burnout, leading health systems to identify root causes and seek interventions to reduce this. A few studies have suggested quality programme participation (e.g., Merit‐Based Incentive Payment System [MIPS]) was associated with a higher administrative burden. However, the association between MIPS participation and after‐hours documentation has not been fully explored. Thus, this study aims to assess whether participation in the MIPS programme was independently associated with after‐hours documentation burden. Methods: We used 2021 data from the National Electronic Health Records Survey. We used a multivariable ordinal logistic regression model to assess whether MIPS participation was associated with the amount of after‐hours documentation burden when controlling for other factors. We controlled for physician age, specialty, sex, number of practice locations, number of physicians, practice ownership, whether team support (e.g., scribes) is used for documentation tasks, and whether the practice accepts Medicaid patients. Results: We included 1801 office‐based US physician respondents with complete data for variables of interest. After controlling for other factors, MIPS participation was associated with greater odds of spending a greater number of hours on after‐hours documentation (odds ratio = 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.06–1.95). Conclusions: MIPS participation may increase after‐hours documentation burden among US office‐based physicians, suggesting that physicians may require additional resources to more efficiently report data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No abstract available. Article truncated after 150 words. Everyone is in favor of quality healthcare and improving it. However, to date, initially highly touted quality measures prove to be meaningless metrics in about 5-10 years. That is, when the measures are scientifically studied, they are found to be of little worth. The cycle is then repeated, i.e., new and highly touted measures are again selected and found to be useless in 5-10 years. The latest in this cycle may be the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid’s (CMS) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The theory underlying MIPS has been that paying for quality rather than quantity will incentivize healthcare providers to improve quality. As part of the deal creating the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) MIPS was established as a pay for performance system which promised to improve healthcare while reducing costs. However, healthcare costs have continued to rise (2). Data on improvement in quality has been lacking. Now, Bond …

Purpose: Care continuity is foundational to the clinician/patient relationship; however, little has been done to operationalize continuity of care (CoC) as a clinical quality measure. The American Board of Family Medicine developed the Primary Care CoC clinical quality measure as part of the Measures That Matter to Primary Care initiative.Methods: Using 12-month Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims data, we calculated the Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care Index for each patient, which we rolled up to create an aggregate, physician-level CoC score. The physician quality score is the percent of patients with a Bice-Boxerman Index ≥0.7 (70%). We tested validity in 2 ways. First, we explored the validity of using 0.7 as a threshold for patient CoC within the Optum claims database to validate its use for reflecting patient-level continuity. Second, we explored the validity of the physician CoC measure by examining its association with patient outcomes. We assessed reliability using signal-to-noise methodology.Results: Mean performance on the measure was 27.6%; performance ranged from 0% to 100% (n = 555,213 primary care physicians). Higher levels of CoC were associated with lower levels of care utilization. The measure indicated acceptable levels of validity and reliability.Conclusions: Continuity is associated with desirable health and cost outcomes as well as patient preference. The CoC clinical quality measure meets validity and reliability requirements for implementation in primary care payment and accountability. Care continuity is important and complementary to access to care, and prioritizing this measure could help shift physician and health system behavior to support continuity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 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. Methods: We 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. Results: In 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. Conclusions: Emergency 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medicare's Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a major value-based purchasing program. Little is known about how physician practice leaders view the program and its benefits and challenges. Objective: To understand practice leaders' perceptions of MIPS. Design and Participants: Interviews were conducted from December 12, 2019, to June 23, 2020, with leaders of 30 physician practices of various sizes and specialties across the USA. Practices were randomly selected using the Medical Group Management Association's membership database. Practices included small primary care and general surgery practices (1–9 physicians); medium primary care and general surgery practices (10–25 physicians); and large multispecialty practices (50 or more physicians). Participants were asked about their perceptions of MIPS measures; the program's effect on patient care; administrative burden; and rationale for participation. Main Measures: Major themes related to practice participation in MIPS. Key Results: Interviews were conducted with 30 practices representing all US census regions. Six major themes emerged: (1) MIPS is understood as a continuation of previous value-based payment programs and a precursor to future programs; (2) measures are more relevant to primary care practices than other specialties; (3) leaders are conflicted on whether the program improves patient care; (4) MIPS creates a substantial administrative burden, exacerbated by annual programmatic changes; (5) incentives are small relative to the effort needed to participate; and (6) external support for participation can be helpful. Many participants indicated that their practice only participated in MIPS to avoid financial penalties; some reported that physicians cared for fewer patients due to the program's administrative burden. Conclusions: Practice leaders reported several challenges related to MIPS, including irrelevant measures, administrative burden, frequent programmatic changes, and small incentives. They held mixed views on whether the program improves patient care. These findings may be useful to policymakers hoping to improve MIPS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) has fallen short of its intended goal to substantially transform the delivery of healthcare by tying clinician payments to quality and cost reduction. Policy makers made changes to the program over its first five years in efforts to address concerns about complexity and lack of meaningful impact on outcomes for our patients. One of these changes, the creation of MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs), aims to streamline reporting of increasingly aligned measures and serve as a stepping-stone for the transition to alternative payment models. As MIPS continues to evolve, these value pathways will provide new opportunities for breast imaging radiologists to participate in value-based care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a requirement for all physicians for value-based reporting. Medicare has approved registries as a mechanism for MIPS reporting. Concurrently, residencies continue to abide by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's (ACGME's) curriculum requirement of utilizing/practicing quality improvement (QI).The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) incorporate a meaningful functional outcome measure into an electronic health record (EHR) to track spine functional outcomes; (2) generate a report containing covariables extracted from the EHR system to provide trackable data for current and future resident QI projects/investigations; and (3) establish an infrastructure to align ACGME QI initiatives with the MIPS requirements. This pilot study and retrospective analysis successfully demonstrates how a meaningful functional outcome measure can be incorporated into the EHR system for QI. Moreover, it demonstrates successful establishment of infrastructure for alignment of QI projects for ACGME residency requirements with MIPS requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Quality Payment Program (QPP) is a Medicare value-based payment program with 2 tracks: -Advanced Alternative Payment Models (A-APMs), including two-sided risk Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), and Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). In 2020, A-APM eligible ACO clinicians received an additional 5% positive, and MIPS clinicians received up to 5% negative or 2% positive performance-based adjustments to their Medicare Part B medical services payments. It is unclear whether the different payment adjustments have differential impacts on total medical services payments for ACO and MIPS participants. We compare Medicare Part B medical services payments received by primary care clinicians participating in ACO and MIPS programs using Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Public Use Files from 2014 to 2018 using difference-in-differences regressions. We have 254 395 observations from 50 879 unique clinicians (ACO = 37.86%; MIPS = 62.14%). Regression results suggest that ACO clinicians have significantly higher Medicare Part B medical services payments ($1003.88; 95% CI: [579.08, 1428.69]) when compared to MIPS clinicians. Our findings suggest that ACO clinicians had a greater increase in medical services payments when compared to MIPS clinicians following QPP participation. Increased payments for Medicare Part B medical services among ACO clinicians may be driven partly by higher payment adjustment rates for ACO clinicians for Part B medical services. However, increased Part B medical services payments could also reflect clinicians switching to increased outpatient services to prevent potentially costly inpatient services. Policymakers should examine both aspects when evaluating QPP effectiveness., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery rhinosinusitis guidelines have been adapted into quality measures intended to be a basis for adjusting physician reimbursement and as public information to help patients select physicians. Early and continual evaluation of these measures is therefore important, given the impacts these may have. Objective: To examine the metrics used in by Medicare for reimbursement in the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) used in Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Methods: This study is a retrospective review of the 2015–2016 Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Compare Initiative regarding quality metrics for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis for providers participating in MIPS. Results: Data for 726 providers were extracted from the PQRS database. Otolaryngologists had a low enrollment with less than 50 responding for any 1 measure. Of the reported quality metrics, otolaryngologists prescribed a significantly greater number of antibiotics than other providers within 7 days of diagnosis or within 10 days after symptom onset (48.3% vs 11.3%, P <.001). There was a significant difference in the mean compliance between otolaryngologists and all other providers for the use of CT scans within 28 days of diagnosis (2.3% vs 0.2%, P <.001). There was no significant difference in the mean compliance for the use of multiple CT scans within 90 days of diagnosis (2.0% vs 2.3%, P =.8). Inverse metrics comprise 3 out of 4 measures. Conclusion: This review of the quality metrics used in MIPS shows several differences between otolaryngologists and nonspecialists, but raise concerns regarding applicability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organized medicine long yearned for the demise of Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula for updating physician fees. Congress finally obliged in 2015, repealing the SGR as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). MACRA established value-based metrics for physician payment and financial incentives for doctors to join alternative delivery models like patient-centered medical homes. Throughout the law's initial implementation, the politics of accommodation prevailed, with federal officials crafting final rules that made MACRA more favorable for physicians. However, the era of accommodation could be short-lived. The discretion that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had during the first two years of implementation is ending. Additionally, euphoria over the SGR's repeal has given way to concerns over the new program's value-based purchasing arrangements and uncertainty over their sustainability. MACRA eliminated the SGR, but not the politics of physician payment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The US healthcare system is shifting towards reimbursement for quality over quantity of care. Quality measures are tied to financial incentives in these healthcare models. It is important that surgeons become familiar with quality measures addressing ventral hernia repair and understand candidate measures that may drive future quality measure development.Study Design: We performed a systematic review of society websites, quality measure databases, and the literature (Pubmed, Embase/Scopus, and Google Scholar) for quality measures addressing ventral hernia surgery. Clinical practice guidelines were included as candidate quality measures. All measures were categorized as structure, process or outcome according to Donabedian domains, as well as within the six National Quality Strategy (NQS) domains.Results: Thirty quality measures and candidate measures were identified. Eight candidate measures from the American Hernia Society addressed ventral hernia repair, and 22 quality measures in general surgery were also relevant to ventral hernia repair. Of the candidate measures, 6 (75%) were outcome and 2 (25%) were process measures. Of existing general surgery quality measures, 9 (41%) were outcome and 13 (59%) were process measures. No structural measures were identified. Overall, the majority of measures addressed NQS priorities of effective clinical care (33%) and patient safety (27%), while few addressed other domains.Conclusion: Both the Donabedian domains of quality and NQS priorities were unequally represented in the current measures addressing ventral hernia repair. Recognizing and addressing the under-represented areas will provide a more balanced framework for developing quality measures and ensure that ventral hernia surgery is appropriately evaluated in value-based payment models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primary care practices become patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) to improve care. However, investment costs and opportunities to offset those costs are critical to the decision. We examined potential offsets through commercial payer per-member-per-month (PMPM) payments and the Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) for a network that spent $4 818 260 over 4 years obtaining and renewing PCMH recognition for 57 practices. With PMPM payments of $3.37 to $8.98, "breakeven" requires that 2.4% to 6.4% of the network's 1645 commercially insured patients per physician be covered, while applying MIPS incentive payments of half the maximum available each year to the network's average 2016 Medicare reimbursement of $196 812 per physician showed they would exceed PCMH costs by 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No abstract available. Article truncated at 150 words. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) voted 14 to 2 on January 11th in favor of telling Congress to do away with Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) (1). Instead they favor moving to what the panel termed a voluntary value program (2). Lawmakers mandated MIPS as part of the bipartisan 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) ending the sustainable growth rate formula that had repeatedly threatened to cause deep cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. On a slide presentation before the vote, the MedPAC staff said MIPS cannot succeed. The cited the following reasons for MIPS’ probable failure (3): • Replicates flaws of prior value-based purchasing programs • Burdensome and complex • Much of the reported information is not meaningful • Scores not comparable across clinicians • MIPS payment adjustments will be minimal in the first two years, large and arbitrary in later years • MIPS will not succeed in helping beneficiaries choose clinicians …

Over the past several decades, rapid expansion in healthcare expenditures has exposed the utilization incentives inherent in fee-for-service payment models. The passage of Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 heralded a transition toward value-based care, creating incentives for practitioners to accept bidirectional risk linked to outcome and utilization metrics. At present, the limited availability of these vehicles excludes all but a handful of providers from participation in alternative payment models (APMs). The LUGPA APM supports the goals of the triple aim in improving the patient experience, enhancing population health and reducing expenditures. By requiring utilization of certified electronic health record technologies, tying payment to quality metrics, and requiring practices to bear more than nominal risk, the LUGPA APM qualifies as an advanced APM, thereby easing the reporting burden and creating opportunities for participating practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the introduction of the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, clinicians who are not eligible for an exemption must choose to participate in 1 of 2 new reimbursement models: the Merit-based Incentive Payment System or Alternative Payment Models (APMs). Although most dermatologists are expected to default into the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, some may have an interest in exploring APMs, which have associated financial incentives. However, for dermatologists interested in the APM pathway, there are currently no options other than joining a qualifying Accountable Care Organization, which make up only a small subset of Accountable Care Organizations overall. As a result, additional APMs relevant to dermatologists are needed to allow those interested in the APMs to explore this pathway. Fortunately, the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act establishes a process for new APMs to be approved and the creation of bundled payments for skin diseases may represent an opportunity to increase the number of APMs available to dermatologists. In this article, we will provide a detailed review of APMs under the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act and discuss the development and introduction of APMs as they pertain to dermatology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the implementation of the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act begins, many dermatologists who provide Medicare Part B services will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Clinicians subject to MIPS will receive a composite score based on performance across 4 categories: quality, advancing care information, improvement activities, and cost. Depending on their overall MIPS score, clinicians will be eligible for a positive or negative payment adjustment. Quality will replace the Physician Quality Reporting System and clinicians will report on 6 measures from a list of over 250 options. Advancing care information will replace meaningful use and will assess clinicians on activities related to integration of electronic health record technology into their practice. Improvement activities will require clinicians to attest to completion of activities focused on improvements in care coordination, beneficiary engagement, and patient safety. Finally, cost will be determined automatically from Medicare claims data. In this article, we will provide a detailed review of the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act with a focus on MIPS and briefly discuss the potential implications for dermatologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Purpose: Care continuity is foundational to the clinician/patient relationship; however, little has been done to operationalize continuity of care (CoC) as a clinical quality measure. The American Board of Family Medicine developed the Primary Care CoC clinical quality measure as part of the Measures That Matter to Primary Care initiative., Methods: Using 12-month Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims data, we calculated the Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care Index for each patient, which we rolled up to create an aggregate, physician-level CoC score. The physician quality score is the percent of patients with a Bice-Boxerman Index ≥0.7 (70%). We tested validity in 2 ways. First, we explored the validity of using 0.7 as a threshold for patient CoC within the Optum claims database to validate its use for reflecting patient-level continuity. Second, we explored the validity of the physician CoC measure by examining its association with patient outcomes. We assessed reliability using signal-to-noise methodology., Results: Mean performance on the measure was 27.6%; performance ranged from 0% to 100% (n = 555,213 primary care physicians). Higher levels of CoC were associated with lower levels of care utilization. The measure indicated acceptable levels of validity and reliability., Conclusions: Continuity is associated with desirable health and cost outcomes as well as patient preference. The CoC clinical quality measure meets validity and reliability requirements for implementation in primary care payment and accountability. Care continuity is important and complementary to access to care, and prioritizing this measure could help shift physician and health system behavior to support continuity., (© 2022 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: Achieving ≥90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90) is achievable with newer biologic therapies, such as ixekizumab. Standard of care payment systems such as the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) responder criteria could lead to under treatment and lower quality of life (QoL) outcomes compared with PASI90., Objective: Show PASI90 is a higher standard than MIPS and is associated with greater improvements in QoL and other PRO outcomes., Methods: Patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis meeting PASI90 and MIPS criteria were compared in 3 phase 3 clinical trials of the interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekizumab (pooled UNCOVER-2/3 and IXORA-S). Patients satisfying MIPS criteria met either static Physician Global Assessment score ≤2, body surface area <3%, PASI <3, or Dermatology Life Quality Index ≤5. Improvements in QoL were compared between patients meeting PASI90 and MIPS criteria., Results: All PASI90 responders were also MIPS responders (PASI90 responders). Not all MIPS responders met PASI90 (MIPS-only responders). Significantly larger change from baseline improvements for all health (skin pain, Itch NRS, DLQI, PtGA, WPAI-PsO work productivity loss, and WPAI-PsO activity impairment) and quality of life (EQ-5D 5L VAS and acute SF-36 PCS/MCS) outcome measures were observed in the PASI90 responders vs the MIPS-only responders., Conclusion: PASI90 is a higher standard of response than MIPS and is associated with greater improvements in health and quality of life outcome measures., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: J. E. Hawkes has received personal consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company for advisory board participation and is a current member of the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation (unpaid service). Dr. Hawkes was not paid to participate in the authorship of the manuscript. P. Reis, C.-Y. Lin, T. Muram, and W. J. Eastman are full-time employees of Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA, and minority holders of company stock., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medicare's Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) includes episode-based cost measures that evaluate Medicare expenditures for specific conditions and procedures. These measures compare clinicians' cost performance and, along with other MIPS category scores, determine Medicare Part B clinician payment adjustments. The measures do not include risk adjustment for social risk factors. We found that adjusting for individual and community social risk did not have a meaningful impact on clinicians' cost measure performance. Across eight cost measures, 1.4 percent of clinician groups, on average, had an absolute change in their cost measure performance percentile of 10 percent or more (range, 0.4-3.4 percent). Prior analyses have generally found higher health care costs for patients with increased social risk. MIPS episode-based cost measures are distinct from previous cost measures because they only include costs related to the specific condition being evaluated. This unique approach may explain why costs were similar for patients with high and low social risk before any risk adjustment. MIPS episode-based cost measures do not appear to penalize clinicians who primarily care for patients with increased social risk.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the percentage and characteristics of radiologists who meet criteria for facility-based measurement in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS. The Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify radiologists who bill 75% or more of their Medicare Part B claims in the facility setting. RESULTS. Among 31,217 included radiologists nationwide, 71.0% met the eligibility criteria for facility-based measurement as individuals in MIPS. The percentage of predicted eligibility was slightly higher for male than female radiologists (72.9% vs 64.5%). The percentage decreased slightly with increasing years in practice (from 78.8% for radiologists with < 10 years in practice to 67.3% for radiologists with ≥ 25 years in practice). The eligibility percentage was also higher for radiologists in rural as opposed to urban practices (81.6% vs 71.3%) and in academic as opposed to nonacademic practices (77.2% vs 70.3%). However, the percentages were similar across practices of varying sizes. There was also a greater degree of heterogeneity by state, ranging from 50.9% in Minnesota to 94.0% in West Virginia. By overall geographic region, the percentage of predicted eligibility was lowest in the Northeast (64.7%) and highest in the Midwest (78.3%). A higher percentage of generalists met the 75% facility-based threshold than did subspecialists (77.3% vs 65.4%). When stratified by subspecialty, however, facility-based eligibility was lowest for musculoskeletal radiologists (38.1%) and breast imagers (45.1%) and highest for cardiothoracic radiologists (85.1%). For other subspecialties, predicted eligibility ranged from 66.0% to 77.8%. CONCLUSION. Most radiologists will be eligible for facility-based reporting for MIPS in 2019, with some variation by demographic and specialty characteristics. The facility-based option provides a safety net for radiologists who face challenges accessing hospital data for reporting quality measures. In general, radiologists should not alter their current MIPS strategy but should instead consider facility-based measurement as a contingency plan that could result in a higher final score.

Organized medicine long yearned for the demise of Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula for updating physician fees. Congress finally obliged in 2015, repealing the SGR as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). MACRA established value-based metrics for physician payment and financial incentives for doctors to join alternative delivery models like patient-centered medical homes. Throughout the law's initial implementation, the politics of accommodation prevailed, with federal officials crafting final rules that made MACRA more favorable for physicians. However, the era of accommodation could be short-lived. The discretion that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had during the first two years of implementation is ending. Additionally, euphoria over the SGR's repeal has given way to concerns over the new program's value-based purchasing arrangements and uncertainty over their sustainability. MACRA eliminated the SGR, but not the politics of physician payment., (Copyright © 2018 by Duke University Press.)

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.)