Literature DB >> 32897346

Association of Clinician Health System Affiliation With Outpatient Performance Ratings in the Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

Kenton J Johnston1,2, Timothy L Wiemken2, Jason M Hockenberry3, Jose F Figueroa4, Karen E Joynt Maddox5.   

Abstract

Importance: Integration of physician practices into health systems composed of hospitals and multispecialty practices is increasing in the era of value-based payment. It is unknown how clinicians who affiliate with such health systems perform under the new mandatory Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) relative to their peers. Objective: To assess the relationship between the health system affiliations of clinicians and their performance scores and value-based reimbursement under the 2019 MIPS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Publicly reported data on 636 552 clinicians working at outpatient clinics across the US were used to assess the association of the affiliation status of clinicians within the 609 health systems with their 2019 final MIPS performance score and value-based reimbursement (both based on clinician performance in 2017), adjusting for clinician, patient, and practice area characteristics. Exposures: Health system affiliation vs no affiliation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was final MIPS performance score (range, 0-100; higher scores intended to represent better performance). The secondary outcome was MIPS payment adjustment, including negative (penalty) payment adjustment, positive payment adjustment, and bonus payment adjustment.
Results: The final sample included 636 552 clinicians (41% female, 83% physicians, 50% in primary care, 17% in rural areas), including 48.6% who were affiliated with a health system. Compared with unaffiliated clinicians, system-affiliated clinicians were significantly more likely to be female (46% vs 37%), primary care physicians (36% vs 30%), and classified as safety net clinicians (12% vs 10%) and significantly less likely to be specialists (44% vs 55%) (P < .001 for each). The mean final MIPS performance score for system-affiliated clinicians was 79.0 vs 60.3 for unaffiliated clinicians (absolute mean difference, 18.7 [95% CI, 18.5 to 18.8]). The percentage receiving a negative (penalty) payment adjustment was 2.8% for system-affiliated clinicians vs 13.7% for unaffiliated clinicians (absolute difference, -10.9% [95% CI, -11.0% to -10.7%]), 97.1% vs 82.6%, respectively, for those receiving a positive payment adjustment (absolute difference, 14.5% [95% CI, 14.3% to 14.6%]), and 73.9% vs 55.1% for those receiving a bonus payment adjustment (absolute difference, 18.9% [95% CI, 18.6% to 19.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Clinician affiliation with a health system was associated with significantly better 2019 MIPS performance scores. Whether this represents differences in quality of care or other factors requires additional research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32897346      PMCID: PMC7489823          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.13136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  23 in total

1.  Changes in Postacute Care in the Medicare Shared Savings Program.

Authors:  J Michael McWilliams; Lauren G Gilstrap; David G Stevenson; Michael E Chernew; Haiden A Huskamp; David C Grabowski
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 21.873

2.  Changes in Quality of Health Care Delivery after Vertical Integration.

Authors:  Caroline S Carlin; Bryan Dowd; Roger Feldman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-12-22       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Horizontal and vertical integration's role in meaningful use attestation over time.

Authors:  Jordan Everson; Michael R Richards; Melinda B Buntin
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  First-Year Report Cards From the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS): What Will Be Learned and What Next?

Authors:  Vinay K Rathi; J Michael McWilliams
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Hospital-Physician Consolidation Accelerated In The Past Decade In Cardiology, Oncology.

Authors:  Sayeh S Nikpay; Michael R Richards; David Penson
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  A systematic review of vertical integration and quality of care, efficiency, and patient-centered outcomes.

Authors:  Rachel M Machta; Kristin A Maurer; David J Jones; Michael F Furukawa; Eugene C Rich
Journal:  Health Care Manage Rev       Date:  2019 Apr/Jun

7.  The Need to Incorporate Additional Patient Information Into Risk Adjustment for Medicare Beneficiaries.

Authors:  Kenton J Johnston; Julie P W Bynum; Karen E Joynt Maddox
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Consolidation Trends In California's Health Care System: Impacts On ACA Premiums And Outpatient Visit Prices.

Authors:  Richard M Scheffler; Daniel R Arnold; Christopher M Whaley
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 6.301

9.  Trends in hospital ownership of physician practices and the effect on processes to improve quality.

Authors:  Tara F Bishop; Stephen M Shortell; Patricia P Ramsay; Kennon R Copeland; Lawrence P Casalino
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.229

10.  The Effects of Medicare Accountable Organizations on Inpatient Mortality Rates.

Authors:  Eli Cutler; Zeynal Karaca; Rachel Henke; Michael Head; Herbert S Wong
Journal:  Inquiry       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 1.730

View more
  9 in total

1.  Emergency clinician participation and performance in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

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

2.  The 2018 Merit-based Incentive Payment System: Participation, Performance, and Payment Across Specialties.

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

3.  How Did Orthopaedic Surgeons Perform in the 2018 Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System?

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

4.  Is Bigger Better?: A Closer Look at Small Health Systems in the United States.

Authors:  Tisamarie B Sherry; Cheryl L Damberg; Maria DeYoreo; Andy Bogart; Denis Agniel; M Susan Ridgely; José J Escarce
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 3.178

5.  Bias in Patient Experience Scores in Radiation Oncology: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.

Authors:  Elaine Cha; Noah J Mathis; Himanshu Joshi; Sonam Sharma; Melissa Zinovoy; Meng Ru; Oren Cahlon; Erin F Gillespie; Deborah C Marshall
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 6.240

6.  Comparison of Performance of Psychiatrists vs Other Outpatient Physicians in the 2020 US Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.

Authors:  Andrew C Qi; Karen E Joynt Maddox; Laura J Bierut; Kenton J Johnston
Journal:  JAMA Health Forum       Date:  2022-03-25

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

Authors:  Dhruv Khullar; Amelia M Bond; Yuting Qian; Eloise O'Donnell; David N Gans; Lawrence P Casalino
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Nephrologist Performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.

Authors:  Sri Lekha Tummalapalli; Mallika L Mendu; Sarah A Struthers; David L White; Scott D Bieber; Daniel E Weiner; Said A Ibrahim
Journal:  Kidney Med       Date:  2021-07-21

9.  Development and validation of a patient-reported scale for tolerability of endoscopic procedures using conscious sedation.

Authors:  Nauzer Forbes; Millie Chau; Hannah F Koury; B Cord Lethebe; Zachary L Smith; Sachin Wani; Rajesh N Keswani; B Joseph Elmunzer; John T Anderson; Steven J Heitman; Robert J Hilsden
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-12-30       Impact factor: 9.427

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.