Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34841400›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2021

Changes in patient experiences and assessment of gaming among large clinician practices in precursors of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.

Eric T Roberts, Zirui Song, Lin Ding, J Michael McWilliams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eric T RobertsDepartment of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health.
Zirui SongDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA; Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital.
Lin DingDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA.
J Michael McWilliamsDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA; Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

Funding

Tradeoffs in the Design of Public Long-Term Care BenefitsP01AG032952 · NIA · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI John Michael McWilliams · 2009 to 2026
$39.0M
Financial assistance for low-income Medicare beneficiaries: Using natural experiments to assess effects on care and health outcomesK01HS026727 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI ROBERTS, ERIC T · 2019 to 2022
$545k
AHRQ HHS K01 HS026727NIA NIH HHS P01 AG032952
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceMedicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), a public reporting and pay-for-performance program, adjusts clinician payments based on publicly reported measures that are chosen primarily by clinicians or their practices. However, measure selection raises concerns that practices could earn bonuses or avoid penalties by selecting measures on which they already perform well, rather than by improving care-a form of gaming. This has prompted calls for mandatory reporting on a smaller set of measures including patient experiences.

objectivesWithin precursor programs of the MIPS, this study examined 1) practices' selection of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) patient experience measures for quality scoring under pay-for-performance and 2) the association between mandated public reporting on CAHPS measures and performance on those measures. DESIGN SETTING AND

participantsThis study included 2 analyses. The first analysis examined the association between the baseline CAHPS scores of large practices (≥100 clinicians) and practices' selection of these measures for quality scoring under pay-for-performance up to 2 years later. The second analysis examined changes in patient experiences associated with a requirement that large practices publicly report CAHPS measures starting in 2014. A difference-in-differences analysis of 2012-2017 fee-for-service Medicare CAHPS data was conducted to compare changes in patient experiences between large practices (111-150 clinicians) that became subject to this reporting mandate and smaller unaffected practices (50-89 clinicians). Analyses were conducted between October 1, 2020 and July 30, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: CAHPS measures.

resultsAmong 301 large practices that publicly reported patient experience measures, the mean age of patients at baseline was 71.6 years (interquartile range [IQR] across practices: 70.4-73.2 years) and 55.8% of patients were female (IQR: 54.3%-57.7%). Large practices in the top vs. bottom quintile of patient experience scores at baseline were more likely to voluntarily include these scores in the pay-for-performance program two years later (96.3% vs. 67.9%), a difference of 28.4 percentage points (95% CI: 9.4,47.5 percentage points;

conclusionsIn this study of US physician practices that participated in precursors of the MIPS, large practices were found to select measures on which they were already performing well for a pay-for-performance program, consistent with gaming. However, mandating public reporting was not associated with improved patient experiences. These findings support recommendations to end optional measures in the MIPS but also suggest that public reporting on mandated measures may not improve care.

Indexed as

Reimbursement, IncentiveVideo GamesAgedFemaleHumansMaleMedicareMotivationPatient Outcome AssessmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34841400
PMCPMC8623747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.