Differences in Utilization of Preventive Services for Primary Care Clinicians Participating in MIPS and ACOs.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Quality Management in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000483
Mina Shrestha, Hari Sharma, Keith J Mueller
{"title":"Differences in Utilization of Preventive Services for Primary Care Clinicians Participating in MIPS and ACOs.","authors":"Mina Shrestha, Hari Sharma, Keith J Mueller","doi":"10.1097/QMH.0000000000000483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Value-based payment programs link payments to the performance of providers on cost and quality of care to incentivize high-value care. To improve quality and lower costs, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Quality Payment Program (QPP) for clinicians in 2017. Under the Medicare QPP, most eligible clinicians participate in one of the payment models: (a) Advanced Alternative Payment Models (A-APMs) through eligible APMs like Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or (b) the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). ACO and MIPS clinicians participating in QPP differ in quality reporting requirements, and these differences are likely to affect the utilization of different quality measures, including preventive services. This study evaluated the differences in the utilization of preventive services by primary care clinicians participating in MIPS and ACOs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We use difference-in-difference regressions to compare preventive services in MIPS versus ACOs. Since preventive services like immunization and certain cancer screening are mandatory reporting measures for ACOs and voluntary measures for MIPS, the treatment group for this study is ACO clinicians and the comparison group is non-ACO MIPS clinicians. We obtained the rates of influenza immunization, pneumonia vaccination, tobacco use cessation intervention, depression screening, colorectal cancer screening, breast cancer screening, and wellness visits per 10 000 Medicare beneficiaries from Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Public Use File (2012-2018).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We had 508 144 total observations (ACO = 25.78% and MIPS = 74.22%) from 72 592 unique primary care clinicians. Compared to MIPS clinicians, ACO clinicians had significantly higher rates of pneumonia vaccination (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.43) but lower rates of colorectal cancer screening (IRR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.96). Similarly, clinicians in ACO shared savings-only models had significantly higher rates of pneumonia vaccination (IRR 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48), depression screening (IRR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09-2.71), and wellness visits (IRR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47) compared to MIPS clinicians. There were no differences between ACO and MIPS clinicians on the utilization of breast cancer screening procedures and tobacco use cessation interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ACO clinicians may have prioritized relatively low-cost services such as pneumonia vaccination, depression screening, and wellness visits to improve their performance under QPP. Policymakers may need to alter incentives in performance-based payment programs to ensure that clinicians are improving all types of quality measures, including cancer screening.</p>","PeriodicalId":20986,"journal":{"name":"Quality Management in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality Management in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0000000000000483","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: Value-based payment programs link payments to the performance of providers on cost and quality of care to incentivize high-value care. To improve quality and lower costs, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Quality Payment Program (QPP) for clinicians in 2017. Under the Medicare QPP, most eligible clinicians participate in one of the payment models: (a) Advanced Alternative Payment Models (A-APMs) through eligible APMs like Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or (b) the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). ACO and MIPS clinicians participating in QPP differ in quality reporting requirements, and these differences are likely to affect the utilization of different quality measures, including preventive services. This study evaluated the differences in the utilization of preventive services by primary care clinicians participating in MIPS and ACOs.

Methods: We use difference-in-difference regressions to compare preventive services in MIPS versus ACOs. Since preventive services like immunization and certain cancer screening are mandatory reporting measures for ACOs and voluntary measures for MIPS, the treatment group for this study is ACO clinicians and the comparison group is non-ACO MIPS clinicians. We obtained the rates of influenza immunization, pneumonia vaccination, tobacco use cessation intervention, depression screening, colorectal cancer screening, breast cancer screening, and wellness visits per 10 000 Medicare beneficiaries from Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Public Use File (2012-2018).

Results: We had 508 144 total observations (ACO = 25.78% and MIPS = 74.22%) from 72 592 unique primary care clinicians. Compared to MIPS clinicians, ACO clinicians had significantly higher rates of pneumonia vaccination (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.43) but lower rates of colorectal cancer screening (IRR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.96). Similarly, clinicians in ACO shared savings-only models had significantly higher rates of pneumonia vaccination (IRR 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48), depression screening (IRR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09-2.71), and wellness visits (IRR 1.27; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47) compared to MIPS clinicians. There were no differences between ACO and MIPS clinicians on the utilization of breast cancer screening procedures and tobacco use cessation interventions.

Conclusions: ACO clinicians may have prioritized relatively low-cost services such as pneumonia vaccination, depression screening, and wellness visits to improve their performance under QPP. Policymakers may need to alter incentives in performance-based payment programs to ensure that clinicians are improving all types of quality measures, including cancer screening.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参与 MIPS 和 ACOs 的初级保健临床医生在使用预防服务方面的差异。
背景和目标:基于价值的支付计划将支付与医疗服务提供者在医疗成本和质量方面的表现挂钩,以激励高价值医疗服务。为了提高质量和降低成本,美国医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)于 2017 年对临床医生实施了质量付费计划(QPP)。在医疗保险 QPP 下,大多数符合条件的临床医生参与其中一种支付模式:(a) 通过符合条件的 APM(如责任医疗组织 (ACO))参与高级替代支付模式 (A-APM),或 (b) 择优激励支付系统 (MIPS)。参与 QPP 的 ACO 和 MIPS 临床医生在质量报告要求上有所不同,这些差异可能会影响不同质量措施的使用,包括预防性服务。本研究评估了参与 MIPS 和 ACO 的初级保健临床医生在使用预防性服务方面的差异:我们使用差异回归法对 MIPS 和 ACOs 中的预防性服务进行比较。由于免疫接种和某些癌症筛查等预防性服务在 ACOs 中属于强制报告措施,而在 MIPS 中属于自愿措施,因此本研究的治疗组为 ACO 临床医生,对比组为非 ACO MIPS 临床医生。我们从医疗保险提供者使用和支付公共使用文件(2012-2018 年)中获得了每 10,000 名医疗保险受益人的流感免疫接种率、肺炎疫苗接种率、戒烟干预率、抑郁症筛查率、结直肠癌筛查率、乳腺癌筛查率和健康访视率:我们从 72 592 名独特的初级保健临床医生中获得了 508 144 个观察结果(ACO = 25.78%,MIPS = 74.22%)。与 MIPS 临床医生相比,ACO 临床医生的肺炎疫苗接种率明显更高(发病率比 [IRR] 1.25;95% 置信区间 [CI],1.10-1.43),但大肠癌筛查率较低(IRR 0.69;95% CI,0.50-0.96)。同样,与 MIPS 临床医生相比,ACO 仅共享节余模式中的临床医生的肺炎疫苗接种率(IRR 1.28;95% CI,1.11-1.48)、抑郁症筛查率(IRR 1.72;95% CI,1.09-2.71)和健康访视率(IRR 1.27;95% CI,1.09-1.47)明显更高。在使用乳腺癌筛查程序和戒烟干预措施方面,ACO 和 MIPS 临床医生之间没有差异:结论:ACO 临床医生可能会优先考虑成本相对较低的服务,如肺炎疫苗接种、抑郁症筛查和健康访视,以提高他们在 QPP 项目中的绩效。政策制定者可能需要改变基于绩效的支付计划中的激励措施,以确保临床医生改善包括癌症筛查在内的所有类型的质量衡量标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quality Management in Health Care
Quality Management in Health Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
108
期刊介绍: Quality Management in Health Care (QMHC) is a peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for our readers to explore the theoretical, technical, and strategic elements of health care quality management. The journal''s primary focus is on organizational structure and processes as these affect the quality of care and patient outcomes. In particular, it: -Builds knowledge about the application of statistical tools, control charts, benchmarking, and other devices used in the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of care and of patient outcomes; -Encourages research in and evaluation of the results of various organizational strategies designed to bring about quantifiable improvements in patient outcomes; -Fosters the application of quality management science to patient care processes and clinical decision-making; -Fosters cooperation and communication among health care providers, payers and regulators in their efforts to improve the quality of patient outcomes; -Explores links among the various clinical, technical, administrative, and managerial disciplines involved in patient care, as well as the role and responsibilities of organizational governance in ongoing quality management.
期刊最新文献
Categorizing Care Delays and Their Impact on Hospital Length of Stay. Experimental Study on Video Discharge Instructions for Pediatric Fever in an Emergency Department. Assessment of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program for Enhancing Clinical Knowledge in Neonatal Care Settings With High Antimicrobial Resistance. Changes in Clinical Competence of Novice Physical Therapists During Their First Year of Employment: A Single Center Retrospective Observational Study in Japan. Integrating DMAIC Philosophy and Bow-Tie Model for Quantitative Risk Assessment in Health Care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1