Free Hospital EMR and EHR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to Hospital EMR and EHR for FREE!

Hospital Execs Underestimate QPP Impact

Posted on July 7, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare editor and analyst with 25 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. She can be reached at @ziegerhealth or www.ziegerhealthcare.com.

A new survey by Nuance Communications suggests that hospital finance leaders aren’t prepared to meet the demands of MACRA’s Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and may not understand the extent to which MIPS could impact their bottom line. Worse, survey results suggest that many of those who were convinced they knew what was involved in meeting program demands were dead wrong.

The survey found that many hospital finance leaders weren’t aware that if they don’t participate in the MIPS Quality Payment Program (QPP), they could see a 4% reduction in Medicare reimbursements by 2019.

Not only that, those who were aware of the program didn’t have a great grasp of the details. More than 75% respondents that claimed to be somewhat or very confident about their understanding of QPP got the 4% at-risk number wrong. Meanwhile, 60% of respondents either underestimated the percent of revenue at risk or simply did not know what the number was.

In addition, a significant number of respondents weren’t aware of key QPP reporting requirements. For example, just 35% of finance respondents that felt confident they understood QPP requirements actually knew that they had to submit 90 day of quality data to participate. Meanwhile, 50% either underestimated or did not know how many days of data they needed to provide.

On a broader level, as Nuance noted, the issue is that hospitals aren’t ready to meet QPP demands even if they do know what’s at stake. Too many aren’t prepared to capture complete clinical documentation, develop business processes to support this data capture and raise provider awareness of these issues. In other words, not only are finance leaders unaware of some key QPP requirements, they may not have the infrastructure to meet them.

This is a big deal. Not only will their organizations lose money if they don’t meet QPP requirements, but they’ll miss out on a 5% positive Medicare payment adjustment if they play by the rules.

Lest the respondents sound careless, let’s do a reality check here. Without a doubt, the transition into the world of MIPS isn’t a simple one. Hospitals and medical practices will have to meet deadlines and present quality data in new ways. That would be a hassle in any event, but it’s particularly difficult given how many other quality data reporting requirements they must meet.

That being said, I’d argue that even if they’ve gotten a slow start, hospitals have enough time to meet the basic requirements of QPP compliance. For example, turning over 90 days of quality data by March of next year shouldn’t be a gigantic stretch in contrast to, say, submitting a year’s worth of data under advanced Meaningful Use models. Not to mention the Pick Your Pace option of only 1 measure which avoids all penalties.

Clearly, having the right health IT tools will be important to this process. (Not surprisingly, Nuance is picking its own reporting tools as part of the mix.) But I’m struck by the notion that organizations can’t live on technology alone in this case. As with many problems in healthcare, tech solutions aren’t worth much if the business doesn’t have the right processes in place. Let’s see if finance executives know at least that much.

Will How Well You Document Determine Your Quality Ranking?

Posted on March 6, 2017 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

We all know that the best doctors in the world are determined by how well that doctor documents the visit.
-Said No Doctor Ever!

Seriously, it’s an absurd claim that the quality of a doctor’s documentation would be how we rank the quality of a doctor. I’m sure just reading the headline probably pissed you off. I was upset just typing it. We all know that there are a lot of great doctors who are really awful at documenting. We know there are some awful doctors that’s documentation looks beautiful.

Since we all know this is the case why would I ask the absurd question about a doctor’s documentation determining their quality rating? Because I can see a path where we head this direction.

Yes, it’s scary to consider, but that’s why it’s so important that we consider it. I think this could be the impact of the quality reporting scores that come from MACRA/MIPS/APMs. It seems like it’s only just a matter of time before these scores will hit the Physician Compare website.

Don’t be surprised if they’re also made publicly available so that every health rating site on the internet pulls them down from CMS and uses them as one more factor in how they determine the highest quality doctors. If you don’t believe this will happen, then you haven’t followed what they’ve done with other CMS data.

Remember that these websites don’t have to have actual quality data. They just have to show the perception of quality data. Most consumers aren’t smart enough (or diligent enough) to know the difference. In fact, CMS itself calls it quality data, so they’ll be able to use that word freely. Imagine the doctor who gets ranked lower because their MIPS quality score was lower or non-existent because they have a small Medicare population or because they chose not to participate in the program. This is not a far fetched idea and is a fear I’ve heard from many health systems.

It’s too bad we don’t have a real way to measure quality. Then, we’d all want that data to be shared. However, I’m close to the conclusion that you can’t truly measure clinical quality. At least not in any scalable way. I’m hoping one day we’ll get there, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Until then, companies will use whatever perception of quality they can find and many high quality doctors will suffer because of it.