Gal Jonathan S, Morewood Gordon H, Mueller Jeffrey T, Popovich Matthew T, Caridi John M, Neifert Sean N
Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Department of Anesthesiology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA.
J Clin Anesth. 2022 Feb;76:110582. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110582. Epub 2021 Nov 11.
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.
Observational retrospective cohort study.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services public datasets for their Quality Payment Program.
Anesthesia clinicians who participated in MIPS for 2017 and 2018 performance years.
Descriptive statistics compared anesthesia clinician characteristics, practice setting, and MIPS performance between the two years to determine associations with MIPS-based payment adjustments.
Logistic regression identified independent predictors of bonus payments for exceptional performance.
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.
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.
基于绩效的激励支付系统(MIPS)计划旨在使医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)的质量与激励计划保持一致。迄今为止,尚无报告描述该计划前两年麻醉临床医生的表现。
观察性回顾性队列研究。
医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心质量支付计划的公共数据集。
参与2017年和2018年绩效年度MIPS的麻醉临床医生。
描述性统计比较了两年间麻醉临床医生的特征、执业环境和MIPS表现,以确定与基于MIPS的支付调整的关联。
逻辑回归确定了卓越表现奖金支付的独立预测因素。
与2017年的参与者(n = 25,604)相比,2018年的参与者(n = 54,381)通过团体和替代支付模式(APM)报告的比例高于以个人身份报告的比例(p < 0.001)。除了以个人身份报告的MIPS参与者外,从2017年到2018年获得绩效奖金的临床医生比例有所增加。2018年的MIPS总得分中位数高于2017年(84.6对82.4,p < 0.001),尽管以个人身份报告的参与者总得分中位数有所下降(40.9对75.5,p < 0.001)。在两年都有得分的临床医生中(n = 20,490),10,559名(51.3%)在2017年至2018年间提高了他们的总得分,347名(1.7%)将报告方式从个人改为APM。与团体报告相比,以个人身份报告(比值比:0.75;95%置信区间:0.71至0.80;p < 0.001)与较低的奖金支付率相关,同时符合医疗补助和医疗保险双重资格的患者比例较高也与较低的奖金支付率相关。通过APM报告(比值比:149.6;95%置信区间:110至203.4;p < 0.001)和增加执业团体规模与更高的奖金支付可能性相关。
在2017年和2018年绩效年度,麻醉临床医生参与MIPS的情况和表现良好。通过团体或APM报告的提供者获得奖金支付的可能性更高。