Manchikanti Laxmaiah, Hammer Marvel, Benyamin Ramsin M, Hirsch Joshua A
Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, and University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
MJH Consulting, Denver, CO.
Pain Physician. 2016 Jan;19(1):E15-32.
Basing their rationale on multiple publications from Institute of Medicine (IOM), specifically Crossing the Quality Chasm, policy makers have focused on a broad range of issues, including assessment of the influence of medical practice organization structures on quality performance and development of quality measures. The 2006 Tax Relief and Health Care Act established the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), to enable eligible professionals to report health care quality and health outcome information that cannot be obtained from standard Medicare claims. However, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 required the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to incorporate a combination of cost and quality into the payment systems for health care as a precursor to value-based payments. The final change to PQRS pending initiation after 2018, is based on the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) which has incorporated alternative payment models and merit-based payment systems. Recent publication of quality performance scores by CMS has been less than optimal. When voluntary participation began in July 2007, providers were paid a bonus for reporting quality measures from 2008 through 2014, ranging from 0.5% to 2% of the Medicare Part B allowed charges furnished during the reporting period. Starting in 2015, penalties started for nonparticipation. Eligible professionals and group practices that failed to satisfactorily report data on quality measures during 2014 are subject to a 2% reduction in Medicare fee-for-service amounts for services furnished by the eligible professional or group practice during 2016. The CMS proposed rule for 2016 physician payments contained a number of provisions with proposed updates to the PQRS and Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier among other changes. The proposed rule is the first release since MACRA repealed the sustainable growth rate formula. CMS proposed to continue many existing policies regarding PQRS from 2015 to 2016. In addition, 2016 will be the year that is utilized to determine the 2018 PQRS payment adjustment. However, after 2018 the PQRS payment adjustment will be transitioned to the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), as required by MACRA. Overall, there will be over 280 measures in the 2016 PQRS.Readers might be surprised to find out that despite the cost intensity including time requirements personnel, the negative payment adjustments, are only the tip of the iceberg of cost. Indeed, all of the above may only be one-third or one-fourth of the cost to completely implement the PQRS system. Thus far, data across all specialties shows participation to be around 50%. In addition, penalties for lack of reporting of PQRS measures stands to be controversial to the Supreme Court ruling that unfunded mandates must not be permitted and also lack of significant relationships with improvement in quality in the overall analysis in multiple publications.
政策制定者以美国医学研究所(IOM)的多篇出版物,特别是《跨越质量鸿沟》为依据,关注了广泛的问题,包括评估医疗实践组织结构对质量绩效的影响以及制定质量衡量标准。2006年的《税收减免与医疗保健法案》设立了医生质量报告系统(PQRS),以使符合条件的专业人员能够报告无法从标准医疗保险索赔中获取的医疗保健质量和健康结果信息。然而,2010年的《患者保护与平价医疗法案》(ACA)要求医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)将成本和质量的综合考量纳入医疗保健支付系统,作为基于价值支付的前奏。2018年之后待启动的PQRS的最终变更,是基于2015年的《医疗保险准入与儿童健康保险计划再授权法案》(MACRA),该法案纳入了替代支付模式和基于绩效的支付系统。CMS近期公布的质量绩效得分并不理想。2007年7月自愿参与开始时,提供者因在2008年至2014年期间报告质量衡量标准而获得奖金,奖金范围为报告期内医疗保险B部分允许收费的0.5%至2%。从2015年开始,对未参与的行为开始实施处罚。在2014年未能令人满意地报告质量衡量标准数据的符合条件的专业人员和团体诊所,其在2016年由符合条件的专业人员或团体诊所提供的服务的医疗保险按服务收费金额将减少2%。CMS 2016年医生支付的拟议规则包含多项条款,对PQRS和医生基于价值的支付调整因子等进行了拟议更新。该拟议规则是MACRA废除可持续增长率公式后的首次发布。CMS提议在2015年至2016年继续许多关于PQRS的现有政策。此外,2016年将用于确定2018年PQRS的支付调整。然而,根据MACRA的要求,2018年之后PQRS的支付调整将过渡到基于绩效的激励支付系统(MIPS)。总体而言,2016年的PQRS中将有超过280项衡量标准。读者可能会惊讶地发现,尽管包括时间要求、人员成本在内成本高昂,负面支付调整却只是成本冰山的一角。事实上,上述所有可能仅占完全实施PQRS系统成本的三分之一或四分之一。到目前为止,所有专业的数据显示参与率约为50%。此外,对未报告PQRS衡量标准的处罚可能会因最高法院的裁决而引发争议,该裁决规定不得允许无资金支持的授权,而且在多篇出版物的总体分析中,与质量改善也缺乏显著关系。