Optimal Care for Kidney Health: Development of a Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Value Pathway.

The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a mandatory pay-for-performance program through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that aims to incentivize high-quality care, promote continuous improvement, facilitate electronic exchange of information, and lower health care costs. Previous research has highlighted several limitations of the MIPS program in assessing nephrology care delivery, including administrative complexity, limited relevance to nephrology care, and inability to compare performance across nephrology practices, emphasizing the need for a more valid and meaningful quality assessment program. This article details the iterative consensus-building process used by the American Society of Nephrology Quality Committee from May 2020 to July 2022 to develop the Optimal Care for Kidney Health MIPS Value Pathway (MVP). Two rounds of ranked-choice voting among Quality Committee members were used to select among nine quality metrics, 43 improvement activities, and three cost measures considered for inclusion in the MVP. Measure selection was iteratively refined in collaboration with the CMS MVP Development Team, and new MIPS measures were submitted through CMS's Measures Under Consideration process. The Optimal Care for Kidney Health MVP was published in the 2023 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule and includes measures related to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker use, hypertension control, readmissions, acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, and advance care planning. The nephrology MVP aims to streamline measure selection in MIPS and serves as a case study of collaborative policymaking between a subspecialty professional organization and national regulatory agencies.

Nephrology registry gives specialty control of quality data.

It is important for providers and practices to begin working with registry level data. Submitting data to a qualified clinical data registry currently satisfies Meaningful Use Stage II menu set items. In the future, with the rollout of MIPS and the increasing focus on sharing risk, registry data will be used as a benchmark for both publicly-reported performance (the physician compare program will be linked to provider-level QCDR data) and modifications to reimbursement. It is important to remember that PQRS data is the basis for the value based modifier now and MIPS- related quality data after 2018. The RPA has launched and is evolving a unique and versatile nephrology-specific data collection and analytics tool. In collaboration with the American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology, vascular access measures will be added to the registry for 2016. The registry and the analytics platform is a tier of software operating above your practice management system and EHR and, if data can be obtained, it can span all the locations in which nephrologists provide care.

Improving care coordination between nephrology and primary care: a quality improvement initiative using the renal physicians association toolkit.

BACKGROUND: Individuals at risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD), including those with diabetes mellitus and hypertension, are prevalent in primary care physician (PCP) practices. A major systemic barrier to mitigating risk of progression to kidney failure and to optimal care is failure of communication and coordination among PCPs and nephrologists. STUDY DESIGN: Quality improvement. Longitudinal practice-level study of tool-based intervention in nephrology practices and their referring PCP practices. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 9 PCP and 5 nephrology practices in Philadelphia and Chicago. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN: Tools from Renal Physicians Association toolkit were modified and provided for use by PCPs and nephrologists to improve identification of CKD, communication, and comanagement. OUTCOMES: CKD identification, referral to nephrologists, communication among PCPs and nephrologists, comanagement processes. MEASUREMENTS: Pre- and postimplementation interviews, questionnaires, site visits, and monthly teleconferences were used to ascertain practice patterns, perceptions, and tool use. Interview transcripts were reviewed for themes using qualitative analysis based on grounded theory. Chart audits assessed CKD identification and referral (PCPs). RESULTS: PCPs improved processes for CKD identification, referral to nephrologists, communication, and execution of comanagement plans. Documentation of glomerular filtration rate was increased significantly (P=0.01). Nephrologists improved referral and comanagement processes. PCP postintervention interviews documented increased awareness of risk factors, the need to track high-risk patients, and the importance of early referral. Final nephrologist interviews revealed heightened attention to communication and comanagement with PCPs and increased levels of satisfaction among all parties. LIMITATIONS: Nephrology practices volunteered to participate and recruit their referring PCP practices. Audit tools were developed for quality improvement assessment, but were not designed to provide statistically significant estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The use of specifically tailored tools led to enhanced awareness and identification of CKD among PCPs, increased communication between practices, and improvement in comanagement and cooperation between PCPs and nephrologists.