Physician Practice Leaders' Perceptions of Medicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).

BACKGROUND: Medicare's Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a major value-based purchasing program. Little is known about how physician practice leaders view the program and its benefits and challenges. OBJECTIVE: To understand practice leaders' perceptions of MIPS. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted from December 12, 2019, to June 23, 2020, with leaders of 30 physician practices of various sizes and specialties across the USA. Practices were randomly selected using the Medical Group Management Association's membership database. Practices included small primary care and general surgery practices (1-9 physicians); medium primary care and general surgery practices (10-25 physicians); and large multispecialty practices (50 or more physicians). Participants were asked about their perceptions of MIPS measures; the program's effect on patient care; administrative burden; and rationale for participation. MAIN MEASURES: Major themes related to practice participation in MIPS. KEY RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 30 practices representing all US census regions. Six major themes emerged: (1) MIPS is understood as a continuation of previous value-based payment programs and a precursor to future programs; (2) measures are more relevant to primary care practices than other specialties; (3) leaders are conflicted on whether the program improves patient care; (4) MIPS creates a substantial administrative burden, exacerbated by annual programmatic changes; (5) incentives are small relative to the effort needed to participate; and (6) external support for participation can be helpful. Many participants indicated that their practice only participated in MIPS to avoid financial penalties; some reported that physicians cared for fewer patients due to the program's administrative burden. CONCLUSIONS: Practice leaders reported several challenges related to MIPS, including irrelevant measures, administrative burden, frequent programmatic changes, and small incentives. They held mixed views on whether the program improves patient care. These findings may be useful to policymakers hoping to improve MIPS.

Time and Financial Costs for Physician Practices to Participate in the Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a major Medicare value-based purchasing program, influencing payment for more than 1 million clinicians annually. There is a growing concern that MIPS increases administrative burden, and little is known about what it costs physician practices to participate in the program. Objective: To examine the costs for independent physician practices to participate in MIPS in 2019. Design Setting and Participants: This qualitative study identified and interviewed leaders of physician practices participating in the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) MIPS program, including those in MIPS alternative payment models. Time required and financial costs were calculated from responses to in-depth, semistructured interviews conducted from December 12, 2019, to June 23, 2020. Physician practices were categorized by size (small, 1-9 physicians; medium, 10-25; and large, ≥50), specialty (primary care, general surgery, or multispecialty), and US census region. Participants were asked about 2019 costs related to clinician and staff time, information technology, and external vendors. Time was converted to financial costs using the Medical Group Management Association's Provider Compensation and the Management and Staff Compensation databases. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual time spent by staff on MIPS-related activities and mean per-physician costs to physician practices in 2019. Results: Leaders of 30 physician practices (9 [30.0%] small primary care, 6 [20.0%] small general surgery, 4 [13.3%] medium primary care, 4 [13.3%] medium general surgery, and 7 [23.3%] large multispecialty) represented all US census regions, and 14 of the 30 (46.7%) practices participated in a MIPS alternative payment model in 2019. The mean per-physician cost to practices of participating in MIPS was $12 811 (interquartile range [IQR], $2861-$17 715). Physicians, clinical staff, and administrative staff together spent 201.7 (IQR, 50.9-295.2) hours annually per physician on MIPS-related activities. Medical assistants and nursing staff together spent a mean of 99.2 (IQR, 0-163.3) hours per physician each year; frontline physicians spent 53.6 (IQR, 0.6-55.8) hours; executive administrators spent 28.6 (IQR, 3.1-26.7) hours; other clinicians and staff spent a combined 20.3 (IQR, 0-36.8) hours. Physician time accounted for the greatest proportion of overall MIPS-related costs (54%; $6909; IQR, $94-$9905). Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, physician practice leaders reported significant time and financial costs of participating in the MIPS program. Attention to reducing the burden of MIPS may be warranted.

Compensation and Production in Family Medicine by Practice Ownership.

The increasing focus on high performance, patient-centered, team-based care calls for a strategy to evaluate cost-effective primary care. The trend toward physician practice consolidation further challenges the primary care health care system. Productivity measures establish provider value and help inform decision making regarding resource allocation in this evolving health care system. In this national survey of family medicine practices, physician assistant (PA) productivity, as defined by mean annual patient encounters, exceeds that of both nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians in physician-owned practices and of NPs in hospital or integrated delivery system-owned practices. Total compensation, defined as salary, bonus, incentives, and honoraria for physicians, is significantly more compared to both PAs and NPs, regardless of practice ownership or productivity. Physician assistants and NPs earn equivalent compensation, regardless of practice ownership or productivity. Not only do these data support the value and role of PAs and NPs on the primary care team but also highlight differences in patient encounters between practice settings. Rural and underserved community practices, where physician-owned practices persist, also merit further consideration. Further research is needed to inform both organizational and policy decisions for the provision of high-quality, cost-effective, and accessible primary health care.