4.5 Article

Otolaryngologist Performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System in 2018

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 166, 期 5, 页码 858-861

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/01945998211032896

关键词

MIPS; APM; value-based payment; Medicare; payment reform

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 2017, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services moved clinicians to MIPS, with increased requirements and thresholds in 2018. Otolaryngologists reporting as individuals in 2018 were less likely to receive positive payment adjustments compared to groups or alternative payment models. Transitioning from individual reporting to participating in alternative payment models resulted in the greatest performance score improvements.
In 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services transitioned clinicians to the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), the largest mandatory pay-for-performance program in health care history. The first full MIPS program year was 2018, during which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services raised participation requirements and performance thresholds. Using publicly available Medicare data, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of otolaryngologist participation and performance in the MIPS in 2017 and 2018. In 2018, otolaryngologists reporting as individuals were less likely (P < .001) to earn positive payment adjustments (n = 1076/1584, 67.9%) than those participating as groups (n = 2802/2804, 99.9%) or in alternative payment models (n = 1705/1705, 100.0%). Approximately one-third (n = 1286/4472, 28.8%) of otolaryngologists changed reporting affiliations between 2017 and 2018. Otolaryngologists who transitioned from reporting as individuals to participating in alternative payment models (n = 137, 3.1%) achieved the greatest performance score improvements (median change, +23.4 points; interquartile range, 12.0-65.5). These findings have important implications for solo and independent otolaryngology practices in the era of value-based care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据