New Payment Models: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, Merit-based Incentive Payment System, Advanced Alternative Payment Models, Bundling, Value-Based Care, Quadruple Aim, and Big Data: What Do They Mean for Otolaryngology?

New payment models have been introduced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to move medicine away from volume-based care toward value-based care. Most models focus on changes for primary care, but specialists like otolaryngologists are wise to familiarize themselves with this changing payment landscape to take advantage of the opportunities and avoid the pitfalls associated with each model.

Post-Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 Trends in Lumbar Magnetic Resonance Imaging Use for Patients with Low Back Pain at 1373 Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar Spine MRI Use for Low Back Pain (OP-8) is calculated by dividing the number of patients who received lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI-L) before receiving alternative treatments (e.g., physical therapy) by the total number of patients receiving MRI-L in the outpatient setting at a given institution. Since the passage of the Post-Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), OP-8 scores became tied to hospital finances. This study aims to determine how MACRA has impacted OP-8 scores since its implementation. We also aim to investigate how regional designation, profit status (for-profit, government, and nonprofit), and hospital setting (critical access, non-critical access) affect OP-8 scores. METHODS: Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare database were used to extract information on the national trends in OP-8 scores from 2014 to 2020. A multivariable linear regression model was fit to isolate the impact of hospital characteristics on OP-8 scores. RESULTS: After a decrease from 2015 to 2016, the mean national OP-8 score plateaued, staying around 40% from 2017 through 2020. A critical access setting increased OP-8 scores by 5.41 (95% confidence interval, 3.51-6.77; P ≤ 0.001), compared with a non-critical access setting. Governmental status increased scores by 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.28-2.27; P = 0.012), compared with a nonprofit status. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of MACRA seems to have been unsuccessful in altering practice patterns, given the minimal change in OP-8 scores over the last 4 years. Furthermore, institutional factors are clearly correlated with a lack of adherence to magnetic resonance imaging guidelines. Given these findings, there is a need to modify health policies.

Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Participation in Radiation Oncology Practices - A Simple Survey.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to survey nationwide radiation oncology practices on their participation in, burden of, and satisfaction with the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) payment programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All radiation oncology practices accredited by a national specialty organization were invited to participate in a voluntary online survey from December 2018 to January 2019. Questions focused on participation in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) in 2017 and 2018, as by the time of this survey, radiation oncology did not yet have a specialty-specific advanced Alternative Payment Model. RESULTS: Of n = 705 solicited practices, n = 199 completed the survey for an overall response rate of 28.2%. Practices varied significantly in their duration of participation in MACRA programs, means of data submission, and reported improvement activities under MIPS. Forty-nine percent of respondents described being either somewhat or extremely dissatisfied with the ease of submitting measures and data in 2018. The estimated cost to the practices of compliance with MACRA was queried in bins; of users able to estimate the cost of compliance for 2018, the median reported bin was $10,001 to $20,000 (range, less than $1000-100,000 or more). CONCLUSIONS: The participation style in MACRA among radiation oncology practices varied substantially in the years 2017 and 2018. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave no precise estimates on the cost of compliance for MIPS, but estimated a $3019.47 cost of compliance with the mandated Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model in the 2020 Final Rule for selected practices. In this survey, respondents commonly reported the cost of compliance with MACRA significantly exceeded this estimate.

The Quality Measure Crunch: How CMS Topped Out Scoring and Removal Policies Disproportionately Disadvantage Radiologists.

PURPOSE: CMS implemented Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) policies to cap points and remove "topped out" quality measures having extremely high national performance. We assess such policies' impact on quality measure reporting, focusing on diagnostic radiology. METHODS: Data regarding MIPS 2019 quality measures were extracted from the CMS Quality Benchmarks File and the Quality Payment Program Explore Measures search tool and summarized by collection type and specialty. RESULTS: Among 348 MIPS measure-and-collection-type combinations, 40.5% were topped out (56.6% of those with a benchmark) and 23.3% were capped. Among measures with a benchmark, the percent topped out varied (P < .001) by collection type: claims 82.7%, qualified registry 60.4%, electronic health record 11.6%. The percent capped was also greatest for claims measures (52.3%). Among 699 Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) measures, 63 had a benchmark, of which 44.4% were topped out. The percent of measures topped out also varied significantly (P < .001) by specialty, ranging from 0.0% (electrophysiology) to 95.0% (diagnostic radiology). Among 20 unique measure-and-collection-type combinations for diagnostic radiology, only one was not topped out, and 30.0% were capped. Among 20 radiology QCDR measures, 5 had a benchmark, of which 3 were topped out. CONCLUSION: CMS topped out measure scoring and removal policies disproportionately impact radiology, which has the highest topped out percentage among all specialties and only a single non-topped out measure. This asymmetry disproportionately impairs radiologists' MIPS flexibility and is anticipated to progress in ensuing years. Current CMS policies create a looming crisis for radiologists in MIPS. The high risk of an insufficient number of available quality measures creates an urgent need for new radiology measure development.

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.

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.

Pediatric Application of Coding and Valuation Systems.

The American Academy of Pediatrics provides this technical report as supplemental background to the accompanying coding and valuation system policy statement. The rapid evolution in health care payment modeling requires that clinicians have a current appreciation of the mechanics of service representation and valuation. The accompanying policy statement provides recommendations relevant to this area, and this technical report provides a format to outline important concepts that allow for effective translation of bedside clinical events into physician payment.

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.