User login
A “time-out” is needed to reevaluate how quality measures are used as part of Medicare’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), according to officials at the American College of Physicians.
according to ACP criteria.
The quality measures were assessed regarding importance, appropriate care, clinical evidence base, measure specifications, and measure feasibility and applicability.
“We also determined that the proportion of the measures that had been developed by the National Committee for Quality Assurance [NCQA] or endorsed by the National Quality Forum [NQF] that were rated as valid by our method,” Dr. MacLean and colleagues wrote. “As compared with measures that were not endorsed by these organizations, greater percentages of NCQA-developed and NQF-endorsed measures were deemed valid [59% and 48%, respectively, vs. 27% for nonendorsed measures], and smaller percentages were deemed not valid [7% and 22% vs. 49% for nonendorsed measures].”
The lack of measures that were found to be valid for primary care is frustrating for doctors and could cause harm to patients, according to the authors.
“We need a time-out during which to assess and revise our approach to physician performance measurement,” they wrote.
The ACP recommends that “physicians with expertise in clinical medicine and research develop measures using clinically relevant methodology,” President Jack Ende said in a statement. “Performance measures should be fully integrated into care delivery so they can help address the most pressing performance gaps and direct quality improvement.”
The time-out call comes amidst differing opinions on how to proceed with the MIPS track of the Quality Payment Program. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has recommended to Congress that MIPS be repealed and replaced, while health care experts and physician associations believe the program should stay the course, given the investments that have been made already to accommodate the program’s reporting requirements.
SOURCE: MacLean CH et al. New Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1802595.
A “time-out” is needed to reevaluate how quality measures are used as part of Medicare’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), according to officials at the American College of Physicians.
according to ACP criteria.
The quality measures were assessed regarding importance, appropriate care, clinical evidence base, measure specifications, and measure feasibility and applicability.
“We also determined that the proportion of the measures that had been developed by the National Committee for Quality Assurance [NCQA] or endorsed by the National Quality Forum [NQF] that were rated as valid by our method,” Dr. MacLean and colleagues wrote. “As compared with measures that were not endorsed by these organizations, greater percentages of NCQA-developed and NQF-endorsed measures were deemed valid [59% and 48%, respectively, vs. 27% for nonendorsed measures], and smaller percentages were deemed not valid [7% and 22% vs. 49% for nonendorsed measures].”
The lack of measures that were found to be valid for primary care is frustrating for doctors and could cause harm to patients, according to the authors.
“We need a time-out during which to assess and revise our approach to physician performance measurement,” they wrote.
The ACP recommends that “physicians with expertise in clinical medicine and research develop measures using clinically relevant methodology,” President Jack Ende said in a statement. “Performance measures should be fully integrated into care delivery so they can help address the most pressing performance gaps and direct quality improvement.”
The time-out call comes amidst differing opinions on how to proceed with the MIPS track of the Quality Payment Program. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has recommended to Congress that MIPS be repealed and replaced, while health care experts and physician associations believe the program should stay the course, given the investments that have been made already to accommodate the program’s reporting requirements.
SOURCE: MacLean CH et al. New Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1802595.
A “time-out” is needed to reevaluate how quality measures are used as part of Medicare’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), according to officials at the American College of Physicians.
according to ACP criteria.
The quality measures were assessed regarding importance, appropriate care, clinical evidence base, measure specifications, and measure feasibility and applicability.
“We also determined that the proportion of the measures that had been developed by the National Committee for Quality Assurance [NCQA] or endorsed by the National Quality Forum [NQF] that were rated as valid by our method,” Dr. MacLean and colleagues wrote. “As compared with measures that were not endorsed by these organizations, greater percentages of NCQA-developed and NQF-endorsed measures were deemed valid [59% and 48%, respectively, vs. 27% for nonendorsed measures], and smaller percentages were deemed not valid [7% and 22% vs. 49% for nonendorsed measures].”
The lack of measures that were found to be valid for primary care is frustrating for doctors and could cause harm to patients, according to the authors.
“We need a time-out during which to assess and revise our approach to physician performance measurement,” they wrote.
The ACP recommends that “physicians with expertise in clinical medicine and research develop measures using clinically relevant methodology,” President Jack Ende said in a statement. “Performance measures should be fully integrated into care delivery so they can help address the most pressing performance gaps and direct quality improvement.”
The time-out call comes amidst differing opinions on how to proceed with the MIPS track of the Quality Payment Program. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has recommended to Congress that MIPS be repealed and replaced, while health care experts and physician associations believe the program should stay the course, given the investments that have been made already to accommodate the program’s reporting requirements.
SOURCE: MacLean CH et al. New Engl J Med. 2018 Apr 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1802595.
FROM NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE