Andrew B Rosenkrantz1, Richard Duszak2, Lauren P Golding3, Gregory N Nicola4. 1. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York. Electronic address: Andrew.Rosenkrantz@nyumc.org. 2. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Triad Radiology Associates, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 4. Hackensack Radiology Group, P.A., River Edge, New Jersey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess radiologists' performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), with attention to the impact of the novel MIPS-Alternative Payment Models (APMs) participation option created under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. METHODS: Data regarding radiologists' 2017 MIPS performance was extracted from the Physician Compare 2017 Individual EC Public Reporting-overall MIPS Performance data set, and additional physician characteristics were extracted from multiple CMS data sets. RESULTS: Among 20,956 MIPS-participating radiologists, 16.6% participated using individual reporting, 68.9% group reporting, and 13.4% APM reporting. Average Quality scores were 59.7 84.0, and 92.5, respectively. The fractions of radiologists scored in Advancing Care Information were 4.1%, 27.0%, and 100.0%. When scored, average scores in this category were 61.9, 94.6, and 80.9. A total of 27.7% and 42.7% of interventional radiologists were scored in this category using individual and group reporting, respectively. However, general radiologists and subspecialists other than interventional radiologists were rarely (<5%) scored. Average scores in Improvement Activities were 37.5, 92.5, and 100.0 for individual reporting, group reporting, and APM reporting, respectively. Average Final Scores were 56.5, 85.6, and 90.6. The better performance of APM versus group reporting was most apparent for smaller practices (ie, for practice sizes ≤15, average Final Score of 84.1 for APM versus 75.0 for group reporting). CONCLUSION: Although radiologists perform much better in MIPS using group versus individual reporting, performance improves even further through APM reporting, particularly for smaller practices. Radiologists seeking better performance under MIPS should carefully explore APM opportunities.
PURPOSE: To assess radiologists' performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), with attention to the impact of the novel MIPS-Alternative Payment Models (APMs) participation option created under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. METHODS: Data regarding radiologists' 2017 MIPS performance was extracted from the Physician Compare 2017 Individual EC Public Reporting-overall MIPS Performance data set, and additional physician characteristics were extracted from multiple CMS data sets. RESULTS: Among 20,956 MIPS-participating radiologists, 16.6% participated using individual reporting, 68.9% group reporting, and 13.4% APM reporting. Average Quality scores were 59.7 84.0, and 92.5, respectively. The fractions of radiologists scored in Advancing Care Information were 4.1%, 27.0%, and 100.0%. When scored, average scores in this category were 61.9, 94.6, and 80.9. A total of 27.7% and 42.7% of interventional radiologists were scored in this category using individual and group reporting, respectively. However, general radiologists and subspecialists other than interventional radiologists were rarely (<5%) scored. Average scores in Improvement Activities were 37.5, 92.5, and 100.0 for individual reporting, group reporting, and APM reporting, respectively. Average Final Scores were 56.5, 85.6, and 90.6. The better performance of APM versus group reporting was most apparent for smaller practices (ie, for practice sizes ≤15, average Final Score of 84.1 for APM versus 75.0 for group reporting). CONCLUSION: Although radiologists perform much better in MIPS using group versus individual reporting, performance improves even further through APM reporting, particularly for smaller practices. Radiologists seeking better performance under MIPS should carefully explore APM opportunities.
Authors: Roy Xiao; Vinay K Rathi; Neil Kondamuri; Shekhar K Gadkaree; Krish Suresh; Justin C McCarty; Regan W Bergmark; Matthew R Naunheim; Mark A Varvares Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Cameron J Gettel; Christopher R Han; Michael A Granovsky; Carl T Berdahl; Keith E Kocher; Abhishek Mehrotra; Jeremiah D Schuur; Amer Z Aldeen; Richard T Griffey; Arjun K Venkatesh Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Cameron J Gettel; Christopher R Han; Maureen E Canavan; Susannah M Bernheim; Elizabeth E Drye; Reena Duseja; Arjun K Venkatesh Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Thomas B Cwalina; Tarun K Jella; Alexander J Acuña; Linsen T Samuel; Atul F Kamath Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Dhruv Khullar; Amelia M Bond; Eloise May O'Donnell; Yuting Qian; David N Gans; Lawrence P Casalino Journal: JAMA Health Forum Date: 2021-05-14