Evaluation of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System and Surgeons Caring for Patients at High Social Risk

Socioeconomic disadvantage is a leading variable in risk score for major amputation following emergent infrainguinal arterial bypass surgery

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify patients at particularly high risk for major amputation after emergent infrainguinal bypass to help tailor postoperative and long-term patient management.

METHODS

In the Vascular Quality Initiative, we identified 2126 patients who underwent emergent infrainguinal artery bypass. Two primary outcomes were investigated: major ipsilateral amputation above the ankle level during the index hospitalization and major amputation above the ankle at any time after emergent infrainguinal bypass surgery (perioperative and postdischarge combined). Binary logistic regression analysis was performed for each outcome using variables that achieved a univariable P value of ≤.10. We then determined which variables have a multivariable association for the outcomes as defined by a regression P value of ≤.05. A risk score was then created for the outcome of amputation after emergent infrainguinal bypass using weighted beta-coefficient. Variables with a multivariable P value of ≤.05 were included in the risk score and weighted based on their respective regression beta-coefficient in a point scale.

RESULTS

Overall, 17.1% of patients (368/2126) underwent major amputation at some point in follow-up after emergent infrainguinal artery bypass. The mean follow-up duration on the amputation variable was 261 days with the end point being time of amputation or time of last follow-up data on the amputation variable. Variables with a significant multivariable association (P < .05) with major amputation at any point after emergent infrainguinal arterial bypass were home status in top 10% (most deprived) of Area Deprivation Index, prior infrainguinal ipsilateral arterial bypass, prior ipsilateral endovascular arterial intervention, prosthetic bypass conduit, postoperative skin/soft tissue infection, and postoperative need to revise or thrombectomize bypass. Pertinent negatives on multivariable analysis included all baseline comorbidities, insurance status, race, and gender. There is steep progression in amputation rate ranging from 5% at scores of 0 and 1 to >60% for scores in of >10. Area under the curve analysis revealed a value of 0.706.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients living in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic neighborhoods have an increased risk of amputation after emergent infrainguinal arterial bypass independent of baseline comorbidities and perioperative events. Baseline comorbidities are not impactful regarding amputation rates after emergent infrainguinal bypass surgery. The need for bypass revision or thrombectomy during the index hospitalization is the most impactful factor toward amputation after emergency bypass. A risk score with quality accuracy has been developed to help identify patients at particularly high likelihood of limb loss, which may aid in counseling regarding heightened vigilance in postoperative and long-term follow-up care.

Are Quality Scores in the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System Associated With Outcomes After Outpatient Orthopaedic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) ties reimbursement incentives to clinician performance to improve healthcare quality. It is unclear whether the MIPS quality score can accurately distinguish between high-performing and low-performing clinicians.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What were the rates of unplanned hospital visits (emergency department visits, observation stays, or unplanned admissions) within 7, 30, and 90 days of outpatient orthopaedic surgery among Medicare beneficiaries? (2) Was there any association of MIPS quality scores with the risk of an unplanned hospital visit (emergency department visits, observation stays, or unplanned admissions)?

METHODS

Between January 2018 and December 2019, a total of 605,946 outpatient orthopaedic surgeries were performed in New York State according to the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. Of those, 56,772 patients were identified as Medicare beneficiaries and were therefore potentially eligible. A further 34% (19,037) were excluded because of missing surgeon identifier, age younger than 65 years, residency outside New York State, emergency department visit on the same day as outpatient surgery, observation stay on the same claim as outpatient surgery, and concomitant high-risk or eye procedures, leaving 37,735 patients for analysis. The database does not include a list of all state residents and thus does not allow for censoring of patients who move out of state. We chose this dataset because it includes nearly all hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers in a large geographic area (New York State) and hence is not limited by sampling bias. We included 37,735 outpatient orthopaedic surgical encounters among Medicare beneficiaries in New York State from 2018 to 2019. For the 37,735 outpatient orthopaedic surgical procedures included in our study, the mean ± standard deviation age of patients was 73 ± 7 years, 84% (31,550) were White, and 59% (22,071) were women. Our key independent variable was the MIPS quality score percentile (0 to 19th, 20th to 39th, 40th to 59th, or 60th to 100th) for orthopaedic surgeons. Clinicians in the MIPS program may receive a bonus or penalty based on the overall MIPS score, which ranges from 0 to 100 and is a weighted score based on four subscores: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and cost. The MIPS quality score, which attempts to reward clinicians providing superior quality of care, accounted for 50% and 45% of the overall MIPS score in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Our main outcome measures were 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day unplanned hospital visits after outpatient orthopaedic surgery. To determine the association between MIPS quality scores and unplanned hospital visits, we estimated multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models controlling for MIPS quality scores; patient-level (age, race and ethnicity, gender, and comorbidities), facility-level (such as bed size and teaching status), surgery and surgeon-level (such as surgical procedure and surgeon volume) covariates; and facility-level random effects. We then used these models to estimate the adjusted rates of unplanned hospital visits across MIPS quality score percentiles after adjusting for covariates in the multivariable models.

RESULTS

In total, 2% (606 of 37,735), 2% (783 of 37,735), and 3% (1013 of 37,735) of encounters had an unplanned hospital visit within 7, 30, or 90 days of outpatient orthopaedic surgery, respectively. Most hospital visits within 7 days (95% [576 of 606]), 30 days (94% [733 of 783]), or 90 days (91% [924 of 1013]) were because of emergency department visits. We found very small differences in unplanned hospital visits by MIPS quality scores, with the 20th to 39th percentile of MIPS quality scores having 0.71% points (95% CI -1.19% to -0.22%; p = 0.004), 0.68% points (95% CI -1.26% to -0.11%; p = 0.02), and 0.75% points (95% CI -1.42% to -0.08%; p = 0.03) lower than the 0 to 19th percentile at 7, 30, and 90 days, respectively. There was no difference in adjusted rates of unplanned hospital visits between patients undergoing surgery with a surgeon in the 0 to 19th, 40th to 59th, or 60th to 100th percentiles at 7, 30, or 90 days.

CONCLUSION

We found that the rates of unplanned hospital visits after outpatient orthopaedic surgery among Medicare beneficiaries were low and primarily driven by emergency department visits. We additionally found only a small association between MIPS quality scores for individual physicians and the risk of an unplanned hospital visit after outpatient orthopaedic surgery. These findings suggest that policies aimed at reducing postoperative emergency department visits may be the best target to reduce overall postoperative unplanned hospital visits and that the MIPS program should be eliminated or modified to more strongly link reimbursement to risk-adjusted patient outcomes, thereby better aligning incentives among patients, surgeons, and the Centers for Medicare ad Medicaid Services. Future work could seek to evaluate the association between MIPS scores and other surgical outcomes and evaluate whether annual changes in MIPS score weighting are independently associated with clinician performance in the MIPS and regarding clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Performance of Neurosurgeons Providing Safety-Net Care Under Medicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), Medicare evaluates provider performance to determine payment adjustments. Studies examining the first year of MIPS (2017) showed that safety-net providers had lower MIPS scores, but the performance of safety-net physicians over time has not been studied. This study aimed to examine the performance of safety-net vs non-safety-net neurosurgeons in MIPS from 2017 to 2020.

METHODS

Safety-net neurosurgeons were defined as being in the top quartile according to proportion of dual-eligible beneficiaries and non-safety-net in the bottom quartile. Outcomes were total MIPS scores and dual-eligible proportion over time. In this descriptive study, we evaluated ordinary least squares regression models with SEs clustered at the physician level. Covariates of interest included safety-net status, year, and average Hierarchical Condition Category risk score of beneficiaries.

RESULTS

There were 2796-3322 physicians included each year between 2017 and 2020. Mean total MIPS scores were not significantly different for safety-net than non-safety-net physicians in 2017 but were greater for safety-net in 2018 (90.7 vs 84.5, P < .01), 2019 (86.4 vs 81.5, P < .01), and 2020 (90.9 vs 86.7, P < .01). Safety-net status (coefficient -9.11; 95% CI [-13.15, -5.07]; P < .01) and participation in MIPS as an individual (-9.89; [-12.66, -7.13]; P < .01) were associated with lower scores while year, the interaction between safety-net status and year, and participation in MIPS as a physician group or alternative payment model were associated with higher scores. Average Hierarchical Condition Category risk score of beneficiaries (-.011; [-.015, -.006]; P < .01) was associated with decreasing dual-eligible case mix, whereas average age of beneficiaries (.002; [.002, .003]; P < .01) was associated with increasing dual-eligible case mix.

CONCLUSION

Being a safety-net physician was associated with lower MIPS scores, but safety-net neurosurgeons demonstrated greater improvement in MIPS scores than non-safety-net neurosurgeons over time. Providers with higher-risk patients were more likely to decrease their dual-eligible case mix over time.

Plastic Surgeons and Equity: Are Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Scores Impacted by Minority Patient Caseload?

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) in 2017 to extend value-based payment to outpatient physicians. The authors hypothesized that the MIPS scores for plastic surgeons are impacted by the existing measures of patient disadvantage, minority patient caseload, and dual eligibility.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of plastic surgeons participating in Medicare and MIPS using the Physician Compare national downloadable file and MIPS scores. Minority patient caseload was defined as nonwhite patient caseload. The authors evaluated the characteristics of participating plastic surgeons, their patient caseloads, and their scores.

RESULTS

Of 4539 plastic surgeons participating in Medicare, 1257 participated in MIPS in the first year of scoring. The average patient caseload is 85% white, with racial/ethnicity data available for 73% of participating surgeons. In multivariable regression, higher minority patient caseload is associated with a lower MIPS score.

CONCLUSIONS

As minority patient caseload increases, MIPS scores decrease for otherwise similar caseloads. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services must consider existing and additional measures of patient disadvantage to ensure equitable surgeon scoring.

Effects of individual and neighborhood social risks on diabetes pay-for-performance program under a single-payer health system

BACKGROUND

Enrollment in and adherence to a diabetes pay-for-performance (P4P) program can lead to desirable processes and outcomes of diabetes care. However, knowledge is limited on the potential exclusion of patients with individual or neighborhood social risks or interruption of services in the disease-specific P4P program without mandatory participation under a single-payer health system.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of individual and neighborhood social risks on exclusion from and adherence to the diabetes P4P program of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Taiwan.

METHODS

This study used data from Taiwan's 2009-2017 population-based National Health Insurance Research Database, 2010 Population and Housing Census, and 2010 Income Tax Statistics. A retrospective cohort study was conducted, and study populations were identified from 2012 to 2014. The first cohort comprised 183,806 patients with newly diagnosed T2D, who had undergone follow up for 1 year; the second cohort consisted of 78,602 P4P patients who had undergone follow up for 2 years after P4P enrollment. Binary logistic regression models were used to examine the associations of social risks with exclusion from and adherence to the diabetes P4P program.

RESULTS

T2D patients with higher individual social risks were more likely to be excluded from the P4P program, but those with higher neighborhood-level social risks were slightly less likely to be excluded. T2D patients with the higher individual- or neighborhood-level social risks showed less likelihood of adhering to the program, and the person-level coefficient was stronger in magnitude than the neighborhood-level one.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate the importance of individual social risk adjustment and special financial incentives in disease-specific P4P programs. Strategies for improving program adherence should consider individual and neighborhood social risks.

Association of Insurance Type With Inpatient Surgery 30-Day Complications and Costs

INTRODUCTION

Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) have higher postoperative complications and costs versus low-burden hospitals. Do low socioeconomic status/vulnerable patients receive care at lower-quality hospitals or are there factors beyond providers' control? We studied the association of private, Medicare, and vulnerable insurance type with complications/costs in a high-burden SNH.

METHODS

Retrospective inpatient cohort study using National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data (2013-2019) with cost data risk-adjusted by frailty, preoperative serious acute conditions (PASC), case status, and expanded operative stress score (OSS) to evaluate 30-day unplanned reoperations, any complication, Clavien-Dindo IV (CDIV) complications, and hospitalization variable costs.

RESULTS

Cases (Private 1517; Medicare 1224; Vulnerable 3648) with patient mean age 52.3 y [standard deviation = 14.7] and 47.3% male. Adjusting for frailty and OSS, vulnerable patients had higher odds of PASC (aOR = 1.71, CI = 1.39-2.10, P < 0.001) versus private. Adjusting for frailty, PASC and OSS, Medicare (aOR = 1.27, CI = 1.06-1.53, P = 0.009), and vulnerable (aOR = 2.44, CI = 2.13-2.79, P < 0.001) patients were more likely to undergo urgent/emergent surgeries. Vulnerable patients had increased odds of reoperation and any complications versus private. Variable cost percentage change was similar between private and vulnerable after adjusting for case status. Urgent/emergent case status increased percentage change costs by 32.31%. We simulated "switching" numbers of private (3648) versus vulnerable (1517) cases resulting in an estimated variable cost of $49.275 million, a 25.2% decrease from the original $65.859 million.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased presentation acuity (PASC and urgent/emergent surgeries) in vulnerable patients drive increased odds of complications and costs versus private, suggesting factors beyond providers' control. The greatest impact on outcomes may be from decreasing the incidence of urgent/emergent surgeries by improving access to care.

Physician awareness of social determinants of health documentation capability in the electronic health record

Healthcare organizations are increasing social determinants of health (SDH) screening and documentation in the electronic health record (EHR). Physicians may use SDH data for medical decision-making and to provide referrals to social care resources. Physicians must be aware of these data to use them, however, and little is known about physicians' awareness of EHR-based SDH documentation or documentation capabilities. We therefore leveraged national physician survey data to measure level of awareness and variation by physician, practice, and EHR characteristics to inform practice- and policy-based efforts to drive medical-social care integration. We identify higher levels of social needs documentation awareness among physicians practicing in community health centers, those participating in payment models with social care initiatives, and those aware of other advanced EHR functionalities. Findings indicate that there are opportunities to improve physician education and training around new EHR-based SDH functionalities.

Implications of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System for Urology Practices

OBJECTIVE

To determine the implications of the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) for urology practices. MIPS is a Medicare payment model that determines whether a physician is financially penalized or receives bonus payment based on performance in four categories: quality, practice improvement, promotion of interoperability, and spending.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of urologist performance in MIPS for 2017 and 2019 using Medicare data. Urologist practice organization was categorized as single-specialty (small, medium, large) or multispecialty groups. MIPS scores were estimated by practice organization. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between urology practice characteristics, including proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries, and bonus payment adjustment as defined by Medicare methodology. Rates of consolidation (movement from smaller to larger practices) between 2017 and 2019 were compared between those who were and those who were not penalized in 2017.

RESULTS

Urologists in small practices performed worse in MIPS and had a significantly lower adjusted odds ratio of receiving bonus payments in both 2017 and 2019 compared to larger group practices (odds ratio [OR] 0.04, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.03-0.05 in 2017 and OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.30-0.47 in 2019). Increasing percent of dual eligible beneficiaries within a patient panel was associated with decreased odds of receiving bonus payment in both performance years. Urologists penalized in 2017 had higher rates of consolidation by 2019 compared to those who were not (14% vs 5%, P <.05).

CONCLUSION

Small urology practices and those caring for a higher proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries tended to perform worse in MIPS.

The Hand Surgeon's Practice and the Evolving Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System began scoring physicians in 2017, with implementation of payment adjustments started in 2019. The program continues to evolve, with adjustments to measures, score weighting and consideration of patient complexity. However, there remain concerns about unintended consequences of this latest value-based payment program. This review summarizes the roll-out of the program in the first performance year (2017) and changes that will have an impact on payment adjustments in the 2022 performance year. Further, it explains the need for policy informed by clinical experience to protect access for vulnerable patients.

A Comparison of Area-Level Socioeconomic Status Indices in Colorectal Cancer Care

INTRODUCTION

There are multiple measures of area socioeconomic status (SES) and there is little evidence on the comparative performance of these measures. We hypothesized adding area SES measures improves model ability to predict guideline concordant care and overall survival compared to models with standard clinical and demographic data alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included patients with colorectal cancer from 2006 to 2015 from the North Carolina Cancer Registry merged with insurance claims data. The primary area SES study variables were the Social Deprivation Index, Distressed Communities Index, Area Deprivation Index, and Social Vulnerability Index. We used multivariable logistic modeling and Cox proportional hazards modeling to assess the adjusted association of each indicator, with guideline concordant care and overall survival, respectively. Model performance of the SES measures was compared to a base model using likelihood ratio testing and area under the curve (AUC) assessments to compare SES indicator models with each other.

RESULTS

We found that the Area Deprivation Index, Social Vulnerability Index and Social Deprivation Index, but not Distressed Communities Index, were significantly associated with receiving guideline concordant care and significantly improved model fit over the base model on likelihood ratio testing. All models had similar AUCs. With respect to overall survival, we found that all indices were independently and significantly associated with survival and had significantly improved model fit over the base model on likelihood ratio testing. AUC analysis again showed all area SES measures had comparable performance for overall survival at 5 y.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates the importance of including these measures in risk adjustment models. However, of the commonly available measures, no one measure stood out as superior to others.

Hospital Surgical Volume Is Poorly Correlated With Delivery of Multimodal Treatment for Localized Pancreatic Cancer

Using Donabedian’s quality of care model, this study assessed process (hospital multimodal treatment) and structure (hospital surgical case volume) measures to evaluate localized pancreatic cancer outcomes.

Neighborhood deprivation and Medicare expenditures for common surgical procedures

INTRODUCTION

The Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services valued based payments for inpatient surgical hospitalizations are adjusted for clinical but not social risk factors. While research has shown that social risk is associated with worse surgical patient outcomes, it is unknown if inpatient surgical episode Medicare payments are affected by social risk factors.

METHODS

Retrospective review of Medicare beneficiaries, age 65-99, undergoing appendectomy, colectomy, hernia repair, or cholecystectomy between 2014 and 2018. Neighborhood deprivation measured by Area Deprivation Index for beneficiary census tract. We evaluated Medicare payments for a total episode of surgical care comprised of index hospitalization, physician fees, post-acute care, and readmission by beneficiary neighborhood deprivation.

RESULTS

A total of 809,059 patients (Women, 56.0%) and mean (SD) age of 75.7 (7.4 years were included. A total of 145,351 beneficiaries lived in the least deprived neighborhoods and 134,188 who lived in the most deprived neighborhoods. Total surgical episode spending was $2654 higher among beneficiaries from the most deprived neighborhoods compared to those from the least after risk adjustment for clinical and hospital factors. These differences were driven in part by higher rates of readmissions (12.9% vs 10.8%, P < 0.001) and post-acute care (67.8% vs. 61.2%, P < 0.001) among beneficiaries living in the most deprived neighborhoods.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that value-based payment models with inclusion of social risk adjustment may be needed for surgical cohorts. Moreover, efforts focused on investing in deprived communities may be aligned with surgical quality improvement.

Improving safety and outcomes in perioperative care: does implementation matter?

The IMPROVE study describes a large perioperative quality improvement project with reporting of both compliance with improvement activities and patient outcomes. It highlights the importance of such projects, as well as the challenges in implementing change and proving benefit. Challenges identified include the importance of effective training in practice change, selection of trial design and relevant quality measures, and how the context of quality improvement initiatives may influence outcomes. Quality improvement programmes of this nature, despite the difficulties with implementation and trial design, remain a high priority because of their positive influence on improving clinical practice.