Relationship Between Physician Burnout And The Quality And Cost Of Care For Medicare Beneficiaries Is Complex.

Despite reports of a physician burnout epidemic, there is little research on the relationship between burnout and objective measures of care outcomes and no research on the relationship between burnout and costs of care. Linking survey data from 1,064 family physicians to Medicare claims, we found no consistent statistically significant relationship between seven categories of self-reported burnout and measures of ambulatory care-sensitive admissions, ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits, readmissions, or costs. The coefficients for ambulatory care-sensitive admissions and readmissions for all burnout levels, compared with never being burned out, were consistently negative (fewer ambulatory care-sensitive admissions and readmissions), suggesting that, counterintuitively, physicians who report burnout may nevertheless be able to create better outcomes for their patients. Even if true, this hypothesis should not indicate that physician burnout is beneficial or that efforts to reduce physician burnout are unimportant. Our findings suggest that the relationship between burnout and outcomes is complex and requires further investigation.

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.

The Growth Of Private Equity Investment In Health Care: Perspectives From Ophthalmology.

The growth of private equity investment in health care has dramatically changed the landscape of health care delivery over the past decade. Private equity firms are rapidly acquiring physician practices, with ophthalmology practices being one of the most frequently acquired types. We present perspectives from thirty-five semistructured interviews conducted with a wide range of knowledgeable people on private equity investment in physician practices, with a specific focus on ophthalmology. Acquisition by a private equity firm can be an attractive option for physicians, particularly older ones. However, interviewees had starkly conflicting perspectives on the likely impact of private equity acquisitions on the cost, quality, and use of medical care.