CMS has issued a request for information (RFI) and invited comments on the implementation of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) as introduced in the MACRA legislation that repealed SGR last April. The legislated "composite performance score" upon which "adjustments" to physician payments will be made under MIPS consists of four categories: Quality, Resource Use, Clinical Practice Improvement Activities and Meaningful Use of CEHRT. Comments are being sought on many topics, including certification of EHRs, technology standards, accountability for data integrity, management of "virtual groups" and, yes, Meaningful Use (MU).
I have three overarching comments:
1. Adversarial relationship with physicians: Right now government programs such as MU and PQRS are generally viewed by physicians as requirements only, not as elements of best practices that lead to quality care. I think it is vital to change this adversarial perception. This will involve a cultural change at CMS. Perhaps the most important tactical change to pursue is moving away from rewarding/penalizing the achievement of specific targets, and moving toward innovative programs that reward practices for making incremental improvements in quality care.
2. Inhibition of Innovation: Physicians support technology innovations developing in the consumer marketplace that have the potential to improve quality of care and lower healthcare costs. While government regulations have the potential to catalyze innovations in the consumer marketplace, they also have the potential to inhibit innovation. Regulations that strive for high-level outcomes are generally more likely to catalyze innovation, while regulations that impose specific limits or require specific actions, mechanisms and processes are more likely to inhibit inhibition. I believe the Meaningful Use regulations have inhibited innovation--EHR vendors have been scrambling to meet specific requirements imposed by the regulations with no evidence that these requirements would result in higher quality of care or lower costs. To change this, we need CMS to mindfully develop government regulations that maintain a high-level focus on the achievement of quality care outcomes while avoiding the development of limitations or specific requirements, methods and processes that discourage innovation.
3. Fair and ethical use of quality metrics for reimbursement: The AMA has published guidelines on the Fair and Ethical Use of Quality Metrics. The guidelines advocate for rewarding physician practices that make incremental improvements in quality care rather than rewarding/penalizing the achievement of specific levels of performance. Although my opposition to the use of quality metrics to impose financial penalties is aligned with these guidelines, I concede that it is difficult for a value-based model of reimbursement to completely avoid penalties. My alternative suggestion is for CMS to incorporate tiered levels of "performance achievement" instead of the "all-or-none" requirements put in place for the MU program. Tiered levels of achievement, with lower levels of achievement designed to avoid certain penalties and higher levels designed to provide additional rewards, will help avoid the "drop-out" rate that the MU program has experienced after Stage 1 as the levels of expected performance were increased. Many physicians just gave up. Even though they could achieve all but one of the requirements, that one requirement eliminated the possibility of receiving any credit.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the implementation of MIPS by CMS.