The argument that CMS needs to improve MIPS is a thing in the past. Now, the focus is on “how to devise ways that actually implement the change and stands true to its promise of a better healthcare system.
Let’s admit there is no standard way for any quality payment program to hit bull’s eye in its starting years. When a program is initiated and tested in a real-time environment, it gives insight on the actual performance and capability of the program; the same is the case with MIPS. Since, its first year in 2017, physicians are raising questions against its payment model.
Many leading healthcare organizations have proposed ideas that might help CMS to overcome related issues.
Reduce Un-Necessary Administrative Work
It is observed that there is a lot of administrative work associated with MIPS reporting. There is a lot of data that needs to be collected and managed to submit to CMS. One reason is the primary care and the value-based medical services that quality measures cover. This program can serve to be more physician-friendly if clinicians are not burdened with extensive administrative work.
MIPS solutions consist of elements from three major programs:
- Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS)
- Value-Based Payment Modifier (VM)
- Meaningful Use (MU)
CMS is working in this context and simplifying this quality payment program with the easy amalgamation of all elements.
However, clinicians are not satisfied and still face administrative burdens while quality reporting. Most of the physicians have reservations regarding the relevance of MIPS quality measures to the program. Quality measures have been a special concern for surgeons because they have been evaluated on patient’s immunizations. This approach is particularly un-necessary for surgeons and reflects poorly on the intention.
The past president of The American Medical Association (AMA) David O. Barde, has provided a list of suggestions in this regard.
- Reduce the number of measures for which a physician can report.
- Re-expand the definition of a facility in MIPS reporting to include all healthcare service providers; no matter wherever they are, such as post-acute care centers.
- Set a 90-day performance period for all MIPS measures.
This way, physicians will be able to invest their energies in the right direction that is, on their patients.
Rethink and Modify Promoting Interoperability (PI) category for MIPS
Promoting Interoperability (formerly known as Advancing Care Information (ACI)) performance category tests physicians’ patience the most. Via this category, CMS has tried to encourage physicians to incorporate certified usage of EHR technology.
According to some physicians, this category focuses entirely on EHR technology, instead of actual advancement in the healthcare system. However, they need to shift their focus on the actual usage of technology and to translate digital health information on the patient level. Only this way, the PI category will stand true to its name.
The reporting requirements for this quality measure should also be modified to make this category more useful for physicians.
Here’s the good news, right from this year MIPS 2019, certain changes are observed for the PI category, which is expected to improve the overall performance of this category.
If physicians strive to score high in this category, they must take measures to perform well in the following sectors.
- E-Prescribing: Computerized generation, transmission, and filling out of medical prescription
- Secure health information exchange
- Giving easy access to patients to their healthcare information
- Public health and clinical data exchange: Exchanging data between different stakeholders/healthcare organizations.
Eligible clinicians don’t need to invest a fortune to excel in specific categories. But, a little improvement can add huge points to the MIPS total.
Implement MIPS to its True Potential
MIPS has the potential to bring advancement in the healthcare industry. However, with the final rule of QPP for MIPS 2019, around 58% of the physicians are already excluded to even participate in this program. It will result in fewer payment adjustments for physicians who improved their healthcare quality.
According to the CMS, with higher reporting criteria, non-eligible physicians will have more time to improve their quality to the maximum level. Nevertheless, the question remains that the purpose of this program is to pay clinicians for their investment in medical practice, not to judge their improvement rate until it reaches a certain level.
In addition, small medical practices have fewer resources, therefore; their performance should be analyzed separately from large healthcare organizations. This will stir the air in the healthcare industry and encourage physicians to move towards valuable healthcare.
Many healthcare organizations want to target incentives and bonuses but due to the inflexibility of the program, they can’t strike on the right target. By acknowledging the resources and the improvement made by the medical practice, MIPS should recognize the efforts one made to comply with the burdensome MIPS reporting.
To receive the latest updates on the healthcare industry, follow us on LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/p3-healthcare-solutions