ArticleJAMA health forum2021
Time and Financial Costs for Physician Practices to Participate in the Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System: A Qualitative Study.
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 23 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mandatory Value-Based Payment Programs and Hospital Administrative Costs.JAMA health forum · 2026Article
- Are the Best Worth the Wait? Physician Quality Scores and Access Delays.Health services research · 2026Article
- Family Physicians' Views of Who They Are Accountable To and Current Quality Metrics.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Navigating New Waters: How Did MACRA 2015 Transform Practices Among Medicare Part B Physicians?Health services research · 2025Article
- Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: longitudinal performance and uneven rewards for safety-net providers over 5 years.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Home Environment as a Therapeutic Target for Prevention and Treatment of Chronic Diseases: Delivering Restorative Living Spaces, Patient Education and Self-Care by Bridging Biophilic Design, E-Commerce and Digital Health Technologies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Evaluating Technology-Driven Strategies for Enhancing Patient Outreach for Preventive Care: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Physician Altruism and Spending, Hospital Admissions, and Emergency Department Visits.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- Accountable Care Organization Leader Perspectives on the Medicare Shared Savings Program: A Qualitative Study.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- Financial Implications of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System for Surgical Health Care Professionals.JAMA surgery · 2024Article
- Association Between Urologist Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Performance and Quality of Prostate Cancer Care.Urology practice · 2024Article
- Acquisition of Urology Practices by Private Equity Firms and Performance in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.Urology practice · 2023Article
- "Plastic Surgery Compensation Models and Patient Outcomes"-An Appetizer.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Merit-based Incentive Payment System Quality Reporting in Urology Practices.Urology practice · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Electronic health record developer market segmentation contributes to divide in physician interoperable exchange.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Comparison of Performance of Psychiatrists vs Other Outpatient Physicians in the 2020 US Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.JAMA health forum · 2022Article
- Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- How Did Orthopaedic Surgeons Perform in the 2018 Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a major Medicare value-based purchasing program, influencing payment for more than 1 million clinicians annually. There is a growing concern that MIPS increases administrative burden, and little is known about what it costs physician practices to participate in the program. Objective: To examine the costs for independent physician practices to participate in MIPS in 2019. Design Setting and Participants: This qualitative study identified and interviewed leaders of physician practices participating in the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) MIPS program, including those in MIPS alternative payment models. Time required and financial costs were calculated from responses to in-depth, semistructured interviews conducted from December 12, 2019, to June 23, 2020. Physician practices were categorized by size (small, 1-9 physicians; medium, 10-25; and large, ≥50), specialty (primary care, general surgery, or multispecialty), and US census region. Participants were asked about 2019 costs related to clinician and staff time, information technology, and external vendors. Time was converted to financial costs using the Medical Group Management Association's Provider Compensation and the Management and Staff Compensation databases. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual time spent by staff on MIPS-related activities and mean per-physician costs to physician practices in 2019. Results: Leaders of 30 physician practices (9 [30.0%] small primary care, 6 [20.0%] small general surgery, 4 [13.3%] medium primary care, 4 [13.3%] medium general surgery, and 7 [23.3%] large multispecialty) represented all US census regions, and 14 of the 30 (46.7%) practices participated in a MIPS alternative payment model in 2019. The mean per-physician cost to practices of participating in MIPS was $12 811 (interquartile range [IQR], $2861-$17 715). Physicians, clinical staff, and administrative staff together spent 201.7 (IQR, 50.9-295.2) hours annually per physician on MIPS-related activities. Medical assistants and nursing staff together spent a mean of 99.2 (IQR, 0-163.3) hours per physician each year; frontline physicians spent 53.6 (IQR, 0.6-55.8) hours; executive administrators spent 28.6 (IQR, 3.1-26.7) hours; other clinicians and staff spent a combined 20.3 (IQR, 0-36.8) hours. Physician time accounted for the greatest proportion of overall MIPS-related costs (54%; $6909; IQR, $94-$9905). Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, physician practice leaders reported significant time and financial costs of participating in the MIPS program. Attention to reducing the burden of MIPS may be warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.