Association Between the Physician Quality Score in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System and Hospital Performance in Hospital Compare in the First Year of the Program

Are Quality Scores in the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System Associated With Outcomes After Outpatient Orthopaedic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) ties reimbursement incentives to clinician performance to improve healthcare quality. It is unclear whether the MIPS quality score can accurately distinguish between high-performing and low-performing clinicians.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What were the rates of unplanned hospital visits (emergency department visits, observation stays, or unplanned admissions) within 7, 30, and 90 days of outpatient orthopaedic surgery among Medicare beneficiaries? (2) Was there any association of MIPS quality scores with the risk of an unplanned hospital visit (emergency department visits, observation stays, or unplanned admissions)?

METHODS

Between January 2018 and December 2019, a total of 605,946 outpatient orthopaedic surgeries were performed in New York State according to the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. Of those, 56,772 patients were identified as Medicare beneficiaries and were therefore potentially eligible. A further 34% (19,037) were excluded because of missing surgeon identifier, age younger than 65 years, residency outside New York State, emergency department visit on the same day as outpatient surgery, observation stay on the same claim as outpatient surgery, and concomitant high-risk or eye procedures, leaving 37,735 patients for analysis. The database does not include a list of all state residents and thus does not allow for censoring of patients who move out of state. We chose this dataset because it includes nearly all hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers in a large geographic area (New York State) and hence is not limited by sampling bias. We included 37,735 outpatient orthopaedic surgical encounters among Medicare beneficiaries in New York State from 2018 to 2019. For the 37,735 outpatient orthopaedic surgical procedures included in our study, the mean ± standard deviation age of patients was 73 ± 7 years, 84% (31,550) were White, and 59% (22,071) were women. Our key independent variable was the MIPS quality score percentile (0 to 19th, 20th to 39th, 40th to 59th, or 60th to 100th) for orthopaedic surgeons. Clinicians in the MIPS program may receive a bonus or penalty based on the overall MIPS score, which ranges from 0 to 100 and is a weighted score based on four subscores: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and cost. The MIPS quality score, which attempts to reward clinicians providing superior quality of care, accounted for 50% and 45% of the overall MIPS score in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Our main outcome measures were 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day unplanned hospital visits after outpatient orthopaedic surgery. To determine the association between MIPS quality scores and unplanned hospital visits, we estimated multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models controlling for MIPS quality scores; patient-level (age, race and ethnicity, gender, and comorbidities), facility-level (such as bed size and teaching status), surgery and surgeon-level (such as surgical procedure and surgeon volume) covariates; and facility-level random effects. We then used these models to estimate the adjusted rates of unplanned hospital visits across MIPS quality score percentiles after adjusting for covariates in the multivariable models.

RESULTS

In total, 2% (606 of 37,735), 2% (783 of 37,735), and 3% (1013 of 37,735) of encounters had an unplanned hospital visit within 7, 30, or 90 days of outpatient orthopaedic surgery, respectively. Most hospital visits within 7 days (95% [576 of 606]), 30 days (94% [733 of 783]), or 90 days (91% [924 of 1013]) were because of emergency department visits. We found very small differences in unplanned hospital visits by MIPS quality scores, with the 20th to 39th percentile of MIPS quality scores having 0.71% points (95% CI -1.19% to -0.22%; p = 0.004), 0.68% points (95% CI -1.26% to -0.11%; p = 0.02), and 0.75% points (95% CI -1.42% to -0.08%; p = 0.03) lower than the 0 to 19th percentile at 7, 30, and 90 days, respectively. There was no difference in adjusted rates of unplanned hospital visits between patients undergoing surgery with a surgeon in the 0 to 19th, 40th to 59th, or 60th to 100th percentiles at 7, 30, or 90 days.

CONCLUSION

We found that the rates of unplanned hospital visits after outpatient orthopaedic surgery among Medicare beneficiaries were low and primarily driven by emergency department visits. We additionally found only a small association between MIPS quality scores for individual physicians and the risk of an unplanned hospital visit after outpatient orthopaedic surgery. These findings suggest that policies aimed at reducing postoperative emergency department visits may be the best target to reduce overall postoperative unplanned hospital visits and that the MIPS program should be eliminated or modified to more strongly link reimbursement to risk-adjusted patient outcomes, thereby better aligning incentives among patients, surgeons, and the Centers for Medicare ad Medicaid Services. Future work could seek to evaluate the association between MIPS scores and other surgical outcomes and evaluate whether annual changes in MIPS score weighting are independently associated with clinician performance in the MIPS and regarding clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Value-based payment models and management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of urologist participation in value-based payment models on the initial management of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019, with 1 year of follow-up, were assigned to their primary urologist, each of whom was then aligned to a value-based payment model (the merit-based incentive payment system [MIPS], accountable care organization [ACO] without financial risk, and ACO with risk). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used to measure the association between payment model participation and treatment of prostate cancer. Additional models estimated the effects of payment model participation on use of treatment in men with very high risk (i.e., >75%) of non-cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (i.e., a group of men for whom treatment is generally not recommended) and price-standardized prostate cancer spending in the 12 months after diagnosis.

RESULTS

Treatment did not vary by payment model, both overall (MIPS-67% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs without risk-66% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs with risk-66% [95% CI 64%-68%]). Similarly, treatment did not vary among men with very high risk of non-cancer mortality by payment model (MIPS-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs without risk-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs with risk-51% [95% CI 45%-56%]). Adjusted spending was similar across payment models (MIPS-$16,501 [95% CI $16,222-$16,780], ACOs without risk-$16,140 [95% CI $15,852-$16,429], ACOs with risk-$16,117 [95% CI $15,585-$16,649]).

CONCLUSIONS

How urologists participate in value-based payment models is not associated with treatment, potential overtreatment, and prostate cancer spending in men with newly diagnosed disease.

Translating Policy to Practice: An Association Between Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act Implementation and Palliative Care Consultations and Perioperative Mortality in Critical Care

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the 30-day postoperative mortality and palliative care consultations in patients that underwent surgical procedures in the United States before and after Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (MACRA) implementation.

DESIGN

Retrospective, Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Secondary data were collected from the U.S. National Inpatient Sample, the largest hospital database in the country. The time span was from 2011 to 2019.

PATIENTS

Adult patients that electively underwent 1 of 19 major procedures.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was cumulative postoperative mortality in two study cohorts. The secondary outcome was palliative care use. We identified 4,900,451 patients and categorized them into two study cohorts: PreM: 2011-2014 ( n = 2,103,836) and PostM: 2016-2019 ( n = 2,796,615). Regression discontinuity estimates and multivariate analysis were used. Across all procedures, 149,372 patients (7.1%) and 156,610 patients (5%) died within 30 days of their index procedures in the PreM and PostM cohorts, respectively. There was no statistically significant increase in mortality rates around postoperative day (POD) 30 (POD 26-30 vs 31-35) for both cohorts. More patients had inpatient palliative consultations during POD 31-60 compared with POD 1-30 in PreM (8,533 of 2,081,207 patients [0.4%] vs 1,118 of 22,629 patients [4.9%]) and PostM (18,915 of 2,791,712 patients [0.7%] vs 417 of 4,903 patients [8.5%]). Patients were more likely to receive palliative care consultations during POD 31-60 compared with POD 1-30 in both the PreM (odds ratio [OR] 5.31; 95% CI, 2.22-8.68; p < 0.001) and the PostM (OR 7.84; 95% CI, 4.83-9.10; p < 0.001) cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe an increase in postoperative mortality after POD 30 before or after MACRA implementation. However, palliative care use markedly increased after POD 30. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating because of several confounders.

Value-Based Payment for Clinicians Treating Cardiovascular Disease: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association

Clinician payment is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based payment, with reimbursement tied to health care quality and cost. However, the overarching goals of value-based payment-to improve health care quality, lower costs, or both-have been largely unmet. This policy statement reviews the current state of value-based payment and provides recommended best practices for future design and implementation. The policy statement is divided into sections that detail different aspects of value-based payment: (1) key program design features (patient population, quality measurement, cost measurement, and risk adjustment), (2) the role of equity during design and evaluation, (3) adjustment of payment, and (4) program implementation and evaluation. Each section introduces the topic, describes important considerations, and lists examples from existing programs. Each section includes recommended best practices for future program design. The policy statement highlights 4 key themes for successful value-based payment. First, programs should carefully weigh the incentives between lowering cost and improving quality of care and ensure that there is adequate focus on quality of care. Second, the expansion of value-based payment should be a tool for improving equity, which is central to quality of care and should be a focal point of program design and evaluation. Third, value-based payment should continue to move away from fee for service toward more flexible funding that allows clinicians to focus resources on the interventions that best help patients. Last, successful programs should find ways to channel clinicians' intrinsic motivation to improve their performance and the care for their patients. These principles should guide the future development of clinician value-based payment models.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Unplanned Reintubation in a Cohort of Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia

Background Unplanned post-operative reintubation (UPR) is a complication of general anesthesia (GA) that can be associated with worsened outcomes. Objective Evaluate characteristics associated with UPR in patients undergoing procedures under GA. Methods Patients over the age of 18 undergoing surgical procedures under GA were extracted from our institution's electronic medical record. Patient baseline, procedural, and anesthesia characteristics were evaluated for associations with UPR. Results In 29,284 surgical procedures undergoing GA, there were 29 (0.1%) patients that required UPR. The most common surgical service with UPR was otolaryngology; the most common surgical positioning was supine. When controlling for operative time and case complexity, UPR was predicted by high-dose opioids, defined as opioid administration greater than the 75th percentile of our institutional cohort. Prolonged operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), body mass index (BMI), extubation time after reversal, or age were not independently associated with UPR. Conclusion Our analysis revealed that high-dose opioid administration is independently associated with intraoperative UPR. Awareness of patients at the highest risk for UPR along with provider education regarding techniques to avoid respiratory depression in this patient population is essential in reducing patient morbidity and mortality. This knowledge will help guide perioperative physicians in medical optimization, appropriate selection of intraoperative analgesics, and cautious extubation criteria to ensure patient safety.

Incorporating Cost Measures Into the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: Implications for Oncologists

PURPOSE

The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is currently the only federally mandated value-based payment model for oncologists. The weight of cost measures in MIPS has increased from 0% in 2017 to 30% in 2022. Given that cost measures are specialty-agnostic, specialties with greater costs of care such as oncology may be unfairly affected. We investigated the implications of incorporating cost measures into MIPS on physician reimbursements for oncologists and other physicians.

METHODS

We evaluated physicians scored on cost and quality in the 2018 MIPS using the Doctors and Clinicians database. We used multivariable Tobit regression to identify physician-level factors associated with cost and quality scores. We simulated composite MIPS scores and payment adjustments by applying the 2022 cost-quality weights to the 2018 category scores and compared changes across specialties.

RESULTS

Of 168,098 identified MIPS-participating physicians, 5,942 (3.5%) were oncologists. Oncologists had the lowest cost scores compared with other specialties (adjusted mean score, 58.4 for oncologists v 71.0 for nononcologists; difference, -12.66 [95% CI, -13.34 to -11.99]), while quality scores were similar (82.9 v 84.2; difference, -1.31 [95% CI, -2.65 to 0.03]). After the 2022 cost-quality reweighting, oncologists would receive a 4.3-point (95% CI, 4.58 to 4.04) reduction in composite MIPS scores, corresponding to a four-fold increase in magnitude of physician penalties ($4,233.41 US dollars [USD] in 2018 v $18,531.06 USD in 2022) and greater reduction in exceptional payment bonuses compared with physicians in other specialties (-42.8% [95% CI, -44.1 to -41.5] for oncologists v -23.6% [95% CI, -23.8 to -23.4] for others).

CONCLUSION

Oncologists will likely be disproportionally penalized after the incorporation of cost measures into MIPS. Specialty-specific recalibration of cost measures is needed to ensure that policy efforts to promote value-based care do not compromise health care quality and outcomes.

Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes

IMPORTANCE

The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019.

EXPOSURES

MIPS score.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure.

RESULTS

The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

Show Me the Money, I'll Show You My Complications: Impacts of Incentivized Incident Self-Reporting Among Surgeons

INTRODUCTION

Trial and error have the propensity to generate knowledge. Near misses and adverse event reporting can improve patient care. Professional ridicule or litigation risks after an incident may lead to decreased reporting by physicians; however, the lack of incident reporting can negatively affect patient safety and halt scientific advancements. This study compares reporting patterns after distribution of financial incentives to surgeons for self-reporting quality incidents.

METHODS

Retrospective review of an internal incident reporting system, RL6, from September 2018 to September 2019 was performed. Incident reporting patterns after incentive distributions across professional classifications and surgical specialties were evaluated. Engagement surveys on incident reporting were completed by physicians. The primary outcomes were changes in reporting patterns and perceptions after distribution of incentives.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighteen surgical patients were identified in the incidents reported. Financial incentives significantly increased incidents reported (35 to 183) by physicians (37.1% to 67.8%; P < 0.001) and physician assistants (2.9% to 18.6%; P < 0.001). Acute care surgery displayed the largest increase in incidents reported among surgical specialties (5.7% to 20.2%; P = 0.040). Surgeons exhibited an increase in reporting (60.0% to 94.5%; P < 0.001) compared with witnesses after incentivization (2.9% to 1.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Financial incentives were associated with increased incident reporting. After the establishment of incentives, physicians were more likely to report their incidents, which may dispel professional embarrassment and display incident ownership. Institutions must encourage reporting while supporting providers. Future quality-improvement studies targeting reporting should incorporate incentives aimed to engage and empower health-care providers.