Neurosurgical Performance in the First 2 Years of Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: A Descriptive Analysis and Predictors of Receiving Bonus Payments

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.

How to become a pediatric neurosurgeon in Latin America: training opportunities, current status, and future challenges

PURPOSE

To provide an analysis of pediatric neurosurgery educational opportunities in Latin America in order to characterize and evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations to assume a career in pediatric neurosurgery.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to pediatric neurosurgeons in Latin America to assess aspects of pediatric neurosurgical education, working conditions, and training opportunities. The survey was open to neurosurgeons that treat pediatric patients, whether or not they had completed fellowship training in pediatrics. A descriptive analysis was done with a subgroup analysis stratified the results among certified pediatric neurosurgeons and non-certified pediatric neurosurgeons.

RESULTS

In total, 106 pediatric neurosurgeons completed the survey, of whose the vast majority completed their training in a Latin American pediatric neurosurgery program. A total of 19 accredited academic programs in pediatric neurosurgery were found in Latin America distributed in 6 different countries. On average, the pediatric neurosurgical training in America Latina has a duration of 278 years, ranging from 1 to > 6 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first of its kind to review pediatric neurosurgical training in Latin America, in which both pediatric and general neurosurgeons provide neurosurgical care to children in the continent; however, we found that in the majority of the cases, children are treated by certified pediatric neurosurgeons, of whose the vast majority were trained in Latin American programs. On the other hand, we found areas of improvement in the specialty in the continent, including regulation of training opportunities, increased support for funding, and more opportunities for education among all countries.