ArticleUrology practice2023
Merit-based Incentive Payment System Quality Reporting in Urology Practices.
Article in Urology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reporting rates of topped-out merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) quality measures, 2017-2023.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMost urologists are required to participate in Merit-based Incentive Payment System-an alternative payment model in which physicians must track and report quality measures. However, Merit-based Incentive Payment System measures are urology-specific, and it remains unclear what measures urologists are choosing to track and report.
methodsWe performed a cross-sectional analysis of Merit-based Incentive Payment System measures reported by urologists for the most recent performance year. Urologists were categorized by their reporting affiliation (ie, individual, group, or alternative payment model). We identified the measures most frequently reported by urologists. Among reported measures, we identified those that were specific to urological conditions and those that were "topped out" (ie, measures considered indiscriminate by Medicare because high performance is easily achieved).
resultsA total of 6,937 urologists reported in Merit-based Incentive Payment System during the 2020 performance year, of whom 14% reported as an individual, 56% as a group, and 30% as an alternative payment model. Among the top 10 most frequently reported measures, none were urology-specific. Eleven percent of urologists reported measures that were directly specific to urological conditions; 65% of individual urologists, 58% of those in groups, and 92% in alternative payment models reported at least 1 or more "topped out" measures.
conclusionsMost measures reported by urologists are not specific to urological conditions, and therefore performance within Merit-based Incentive Payment System may be a poor indicator of the quality of urological care provided. As Medicare transitions Merit-based Incentive Payment System to implement specific quality measures, the urological community will need to develop and submit measures that will be most impactful for urology patients.
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.