Four years into MACRA: What has changed?

In 2015, Congress passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA), a policy intended to transition Medicare away from pure fee-for-service care to value-based care. MACRA does this by evaluating the cost and quality of providers, resulting in financial bonuses and penalties in Medicare reimbursement. MACRA offers two tracks for participation, the Merit-based Incentive Payment System and the Advanced Alternative Payment Models. Although the payment rules are different for each of the tracks, common to both is an emphasis on holding providers accountable for high-quality, cost-efficient care. Early data suggest that the End-stage renal disease Seamless Care Organizations, an Advanced Alternative Payment Model, resulted in cost-savings concurrent with improved care quality. Additionally, on July 10th 2019, the President signed an executive order that further attempts to improve kidney disease care by shifting its focus away from in-center hemodialysis toward chronic kidney disease care, home-based dialysis, kidney transplantation, and innovating new therapies for kidney disease. These changes to nephrology reimbursement present a unique opportunity to improve patient outcomes in a cost-effective way. A multidisciplinary effort among policy makers, nephrology providers, and patient advocacy groups is critical to ensure these changes in care delivery safeguard and improve patient health.

Addition of Efficiency Measures to Current Accuracy Measures in the Vascular Laboratory Can Be Used for Future Accreditation and Payment Models.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) brings with it increased regulatory requirements not traditionally addressed by standard vascular laboratory accreditation, which is based on accuracy. The new quality improvement project of the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) may satisfy an improvement activity (IA) of the MACRA. We hypothesize that other IAs in the MACRA such as timeliness of test results or patient care quality performance requirements can be met by analyzing data already being collected by the vascular laboratory. After a process improvement strategy, we chose to review progress in our vascular laboratory related to time to interpretation (TI), patient check-in to study completion (study time), wait time for first available outpatient venous duplex scan (wait time), technologist productivity, and critical results reporting. METHODS: Data from our hospital-based vascular laboratory were collected from 2010 to 2016. TI was collected through our reporting software VascuPro (Consensus Medical), and study time and wait time were obtained from electronic medical records (EMR) (Epic). Technologist productivity was calculated by commercially available productivity tools, and compliance with critical results reporting was calculated quarterly as per our quality assurance program. Appropriateness of carotid duplex scan testing was performed by expert review of International Classification of Disease codes used to request the test. RESULTS: TI analysis comprised 91,352 studies with a mean of 3.3 hr between test completion and final interpretation. The TI improved from 5.0 to 2.1 hr on weekdays and was longer on weekends (4.9 hr; P < 0.001). The study time improved from 29.8 to 27.2 min and was 14.9 min shorter on the weekends (P < 0.001). The wait time ranged from a mean of 1-2.08 days. Technologist productivity improved from 90.7% to 93.6%. Critical results reporting quarterly audits showed a 100% compliance rate. On expert review, the International Classification of Disease code on carotid duplex scan requests in the EMR was deemed inaccurate in 17.4% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: TI and study time improved; wait time and critical results reporting remained steady. Most of the data are readily available in a vascular laboratory standard EMR. The plan-do-study-act (PDSA or Shewhart Cycle) principle is critical to process improvement and needed as we transition from traditional accreditation mostly based on test accuracy to one demanding efficiency, timeliness, patient satisfaction, productivity, accountability, and appropriateness of testing. Process improvement studies will improve patient care and satisfaction, increase efficiency and throughput, while satisfying changing IAC standards and preparing for upcoming regulatory requirements of the MACRA.

Primary Care Physicians in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS): a Qualitative Investigation of Participants' Experiences, Self-Reported Practice Changes, and Suggestions for Program Administrators.

BACKGROUND: While both administrators of pay-for-performance programs and practicing physicians strive to improve healthcare quality, they sometimes disagree on the best approach. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 mandated the creation of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), a program that incentivizes more than 700,000 physician participants to report on four domains of care, including healthcare quality. While MIPS performance scores were recently released, little is known about how primary care physicians (PCPs) and their practices are being affected by the program and what actions they are taking in response to MIPS. OBJECTIVES: To (1) describe PCP perspectives and self-reported practice changes related to quality measurement under MIPS and (2) disseminate PCP suggestions for improving the program. DESIGN: Qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty PCPs trained in internal medicine or family medicine who were expected to report under MIPS for calendar year 2017 were interviewed between October 2017 and June 2018. Eight PCPs self-reported to be knowledgeable about MIPS. Seven PCPs worked in small practices. KEY RESULTS: Most PCPs identified advantages of quality measurement under MIPS, including the creation of practice-level systems for quality improvement. However, they also cited disadvantages, including administrative burdens and fears that practices serving vulnerable patients could be penalized. Many participants reported using technology or altering staffing to help with data collection and performance improvement. A few participants were considering selling small practices or joining larger ones to avoid administrative tasks. Suggestions for improving MIPS included simplifying the program to reduce administrative burdens, protecting practices serving vulnerable populations, and improving communication between program administrators and PCPs. CONCLUSIONS: MIPS is succeeding in nudging PCPs to develop quality measurement and improvement systems, but PCPs are concerned that administrative burdens are leading to the diversion of clinical resources away from patient-centered care and negatively impacting patient and clinician satisfaction. Program administrators should improve communication with participants and consider simplifying the program to make it less burdensome. Future work should be done to investigate how technical assistance programs can target PCPs that serve vulnerable patient populations and are having difficulty adapting to MIPS.

Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act and Rural Hospitals.

The cost of health care within the United States has continued to increase, whereas the quality of patient care has generally decreased in some areas. With the continued use of Medicare's former physician reimbursement algorithm, termed sustainable growth rate, national expenditures within the United States have been expected to increase 5.6% annually. To modernize the delivery and financing of care, Congress has introduced the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), which has permanently eliminated and replaced the sustainable growth rate. The purpose of this study was to review MACRA and its implementation to determine how it would financially impact rural hospitals. Two reimbursement pathways have been created for physicians under the MACRA. In addition, the financing and competition among facilities created by the act have been expected to impact physicians and health care organizations. Rural hospitals have been set to receive reduced government reimbursements and have been predicted to compete poorly with larger hospitals and health care corporations. Furthermore, the payment tracks available through the act have been projected to impact solo and small practice physicians negatively.

The five things we all need to know about MACRA and alternative payment systems to compete and flourish.

Changes in how patient care will be reimbursed in the future are being determined right now. The law has changed to eliminate the past method of fee for service funded by the sustainable growth rate formula to payment based on quality. You need to know how the system functions to prevent a 4% reduction in Medicare reimbursement in 2019. You need to know this now because data collected today in 2017 will determine your rate for 2019. This review provides you knowledge of how the system has changed, what is required of you right now to be successful, and how you can succeed in the future. Pertinent references are provided to allow you to query the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the most up-to-date information.

Risk Adjustment Is Necessary in Value-based Outcomes Models for Infected TKA.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 provides the framework to link reimbursement for providers based on outcome metrics. Concerns exist that the lack of risk adjustment for patients undergoing revision TKA for an infection may cause problems with access to care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) After controlling for confounding variables, do patients undergoing revision TKA for infection have higher 30-day readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates than those undergoing revision TKA for aseptic causes? (2) Compared with patients undergoing revision TKA who are believed not to have infections, are patients undergoing revision for infected TKAs at increased risk for complications? METHODS: We queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for patients undergoing revision TKA from 2012 to 2015 identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 27486, 27487, and 27488. Of the 10,848 patients identified, four were excluded with a diagnosis of malignancy (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision code 170.7, 170.9, 171.8, or 198.5). This validated, national database records short-term outcome data for inpatient procedures and does not rely on administrative coding data. Demographic variables, comorbidities, and outcomes were compared between patients believed to have infected TKAs and those undergoing revision for aseptic causes. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent factors associated with complications, readmissions, reoperations, and mortality. RESULTS: After controlling for demographic factors and medical comorbidities, TKA revision for infection was independently associated with complications (odds ratio [OR], 3.736; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.198-4.365; p < 0.001), 30-day readmission (OR, 1.455; 95% CI, 1.207-1.755; p < 0.001), 30-day reoperation (OR, 1.614; 95% CI, 1.278-2.037; p < 0.001), and 30-day mortality (OR, 3.337; 95% CI, 1.213-9.180; p = 0.020). Patients with infected TKA had higher rates of postoperative infection (OR, 3.818; 95% CI, 3.082-4.728; p < 0.001), renal failure (OR, 36.709; 95% CI, 8.255-163.231; p < 0.001), sepsis (OR, 7.582; 95% CI, 5.529-10.397; p < 0.001), and septic shock (OR, 3.031; 95% CI, 1.376-6.675; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers should be aware of the higher rate of mortality, readmissions, reoperations, and complications in patients with infected TKA. Without appropriate risk adjustment or excluding these patients all together from alternative payment and quality reporting models, fewer providers will be incentivized to care for patients with infected TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Future considerations for clinical dermatology in the setting of 21st century American policy reform: The Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

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.

Future considerations for clinical dermatology in the setting of 21st century American policy reform: The Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act and Alternative Payment Models in dermatology.

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.

The Future of Obstetrics and Gynecology: MACRA, Electronic Health Records, and More.

There is immense change affecting obstetrical and gynecologic medical practice at this moment in time-involving reimbursement with the shift from volume-based to value-based care, increasing regulation, and workforce sustainability. Aspects to be reviewed in this chapter include reimbursements and Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), electronic medical records, physician satisfaction surveys, maintenance of certification, and physician burnout.

Quality measures and pediatric radiology: suggestions for the transition to value-based payment.

Recent political and economic factors have contributed to a meaningful change in the way that quality in health care, and by extension value, are viewed. While quality is often evaluated on the basis of subjective criteria, pay-for-performance programs that link reimbursement to various measures of quality require use of objective and quantifiable measures. This evolution to value-based payment was accelerated by the 2015 passage of the Medicare Access and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) Reauthorization Act (MACRA). While many of the drivers of these changes are rooted in federal policy and programs such as Medicare and aimed at adult patients, the practice of pediatrics and pediatric radiology will be increasingly impacted. This article addresses issues related to the use of quantitative measures to evaluate the quality of services provided by the pediatric radiology department or sub-specialty section, particularly as seen from the viewpoint of a payer that may be considering ways to link payment to performance. The paper concludes by suggesting a metric categorization strategy to frame future work on the subject.

Thriving Under Medicare's Newest Pay-for- Performance Program: Making Sense of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System And the Alternative Payment Models: Part I.

This is the first in a three-part series of articles intended to guide medical practice managers through the maze of the innovative,'yet complex regulations that will affect the amounts paid to healthcare providers by Medicare for at least the next three years. The goal of this series is to provide information to help practices optimize their payment potential from Medicare in 2019 based on their actions toward compliance for some portion of 2017 and to prepare to expand these behaviors as required in future years. Although there-are two pathways for participation in these new pay-for-performance programs, the series focuses more on actions required in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Approximately 85% of clinicians submitting Medicare Part B claims will participate in MIPS. The remaining 15% could assume risk in return for larger incentives while carrying out improvement activities similar to the MIPS requirements in frameworks known as Alternative Payment Models.

MACRA Meets Your Revenue Cycle: Four Steps for the Value Journey.

The shift from fee-for-service to value-based reimbursement models represents one of the biggest billing transitions and greatest financial opportunities for physician practices. On the heels of ICD-10 adoption and against the backdrop of new digital infrastructure and workflows, practices face a new journey toward the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) and the Quality Payment Program. Knowledge of how to traverse the path, navigate the intersections, and optimize the opportunities of healthcare payment reform is essential. This article offers an overview of the new Medicare reimbursement landscape and specific steps that practices can take to protect revenue streams today and ensure they thrive tomorrow.

Preparing for the Transition to Value-Based Reimbursement: What You Need to Know.

By now most healthcare providers have heard about the transition from volume, based to value-based reimbursement, but it can be challenging to keep up with the latest initiatives and to understand the implications for providers. In fact, as of the writing of this article, lawmakers are continuing the debate on healthcare legislation. This article reviews the basics of the transition from volume-based to value-based reimbursement, summarizes the latest government healthcare programs under the Affordable Care Act, and explores what providers need to know to navigate the transition successfully.

Advanced Alternative Payment Models Part II: Understanding the Next Generation Accountable Care Organization Model.

With CMS establishing preliminary definitions for fully qualifying Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs) in May of 2016, it has become crucial to many care providers accepting Medicare and Medicaid payments to understand the nature of these entities if they wish to eventually participate in one of the current or future payment models. Changes under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 specifically identify subsets of APMs that allow providers to avoid possible negative adjustments for poor relative performance compared with their respective peer groups through the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System beginning in 2017. This article reviews the nature of one of the fully qualifying Advanced APMs, the Next Generation Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Model, and its risk-benefit sharing principles based on prior experience with the Medicare Shared Savings Program and other previous ACO models. This model represents a more sophisticated option for organizations with significant ACO experience seeking an Advanced APM for the 2018 reporting reriod and beyond.

A Look at MACRA: What to Expect in 2017.

The Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2015 fundamentally changes how physicians who care for Medicare patients will be paid. Although physicians won't see changes in their payments in 2017, they need to understand that their performance in 2017 will be the basis for the payments made to them starting in 2019. This article summarizes the two paths for determining future Medicare payments established by the law: the merit-based incentive payment system and advanced alternative payment models.

More than 800,000 docs get pass on MACRA compliance, for now.

CMS notified physicians that they won't have to comply with Merit-based Incentive Payment System reporting requirements in 2017.

A soft opening seems in store.

Despite its complexity and swarm of new acronyms, MACRA seems like a habitable dry land in comparison to the turbulent waters of the rest of health care-predictable, supported by both parties, and adjusted in the final rule so its effect on providers in 2017 will be milder than feared.

Balkanization Makes It Unclear Just What the Doctor Ordered.

Divided into many different pressure groups, physicians mostly can live with the ACA. But now they have MACRA, MIPs, APM, and other puzzles to figure out.