Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35977308›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2021

Time and Financial Costs for Physician Practices to Participate in the Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System: A Qualitative Study.

Dhruv Khullar, Amelia M Bond, Eloise May O'Donnell, Yuting Qian, David N Gans, Lawrence P Casalino

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 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. "Plastic Surgery Compensation Models and Patient Outcomes"-An Appetizer.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dhruv KhullarDivision of Health Policy and Economics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Amelia M BondDivision of Health Policy and Economics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Eloise May O'DonnellDivision of Health Policy and Economics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Yuting QianDivision of Health Policy and Economics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
David N GansMedical Group Management Association, Englewood, Colorado.
Lawrence P CasalinoDivision of Health Policy and Economics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

MedicarePhysiciansAgedHumansMotivationQualitative ResearchReimbursement, IncentiveUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35977308
PMCPMC8796897

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.