5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Performance of Psychiatrists vs Other Outpatient Physicians in the 2020 US Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

      research-article
      , MD 1 , 2 , , MD, MPH 1 , , MD 3 , , PhD 4 ,
      JAMA Health Forum
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          How did psychiatrists perform in the 2020 Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) compared with other outpatient physicians?

          Findings

          In this cross-sectional study of 9356 psychiatrists and 196 306 other outpatient physicians participating in the 2020 MIPS, psychiatrists had significantly lower performance scores, were significantly more likely to be assessed a performance penalty, and were less likely to be assessed a bonus than other physicians.

          Meaning

          Psychiatrists performed worse than other physicians in Medicare’s new mandatory outpatient value-based payment system; therefore, more research is needed to evaluate the appropriateness of MIPS measures for psychiatrists.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study compares the performance of psychiatrists vs other outpatient physicians in Medicare’s Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Medicare’s Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a new, mandatory, outpatient value-based payment program that ties reimbursement to performance on cost and quality measures for many US clinicians. However, it is currently unknown how the program measures the performance of psychiatrists, who often treat a different patient case mix with different clinical considerations than do other outpatient clinicians.

          Objective

          To compare performance scores and value-based reimbursement for psychiatrists vs other outpatient physicians in the 2020 MIPS.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          In this cross-sectional study, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Data Catalog was used to identify outpatient Medicare physicians listed in the National Downloadable File between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, who participated in the 2020 MIPS and received a publicly reported final performance score. Data from the 593 863 clinicians participating in the 2020 MIPS were used to compare differences in the 2020 MIPS performance scores and value-based reimbursement (based on performance in 2018) for psychiatrists vs other physicians, adjusting for physician, patient, and practice area characteristics.

          Exposures

          Participation in MIPS.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Primary outcomes were final MIPS performance score and negative (penalty), positive, and exceptional performance bonus payment adjustments. Secondary outcomes were scores in the MIPS performance domains: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and cost.

          Results

          This study included 9356 psychiatrists (3407 [36.4%] female and 5 949 [63.6%] male) and 196 306 other outpatient physicians (69 221 [35.3%] female and 127 085 [64.7%] male) (data on age and race are not available). Compared with other physicians, psychiatrists were less likely to be affiliated with a safety-net hospital (2119 [22.6%] vs 64 997 [33.1%]) or a major teaching hospital (2148 [23.0%] vs 53 321 [27.2%]) and had lower annual Medicare patient volume (181 vs 437 patients) and mean patient risk scores (1.65 vs 1.78) ( P < .001 for all). The mean final MIPS performance score for psychiatrists was 84.0 vs 89.7 for other physicians (absolute difference, −5.7; 95% CI, −6.2 to −5.2). A total of 573 psychiatrists (6.1%) received a penalty vs 5739 (2.9%) of other physicians (absolute difference, 3.2%; 95% CI, 2.8%-3.6%); 8664 psychiatrists (92.6%) vs 189 037 other physicians (96.3%) received a positive payment adjustment (absolute difference, −3.7%; 95% CI, −3.3% to −4.1%), and 7672 psychiatrists (82.0%) vs 174 040 other physicians (88.7%) received a bonus payment adjustment (absolute difference, −6.7%; 95% CI, −6.0% to −7.3%). These differences remained significant after adjustment.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this cross-sectional study that compared US psychiatrists with other outpatient physicians, psychiatrists had significantly lower 2020 MIPS performance scores, were penalized more frequently, and received fewer bonuses. Policy makers should evaluate whether current MIPS performance measures appropriately assess the performance of psychiatrists.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Making Neighborhood-Disadvantage Metrics Accessible — The Neighborhood Atlas

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Screening for Depression in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

            Update of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for depression in adults.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparative effectiveness of collaborative chronic care models for mental health conditions across primary, specialty, and behavioral health care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.

              Collaborative chronic care models (CCMs) improve outcome in chronic medical illnesses and depression treated in primary care settings. The effect of such models across other treatment settings and mental health conditions has not been comprehensively assessed. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness of CCMs for mental health conditions across disorders and treatment settings. Randomized controlled trials comparing CCMs with other care conditions, published or in press by August 15, 2011, were identified in a literature search and through contact with investigators. CCMs were defined a priori as interventions with at least three of the six components of the Improving Chronic Illness Care initiative (patient self-management support, clinical information systems, delivery system redesign, decision support, organizational support, and community resource linkages). Articles were included if the CCM effect on mental health symptoms or mental quality of life was reported. Data extraction included analyses of these outcomes plus social role function, physical and overall quality of life, and costs. Meta-analyses included comparisons using unadjusted continuous measures. Seventy-eight articles yielded 161 analyses from 57 trials (depression, N=40; bipolar disorder, N=4; anxiety disorders, N=3; multiple/other disorders, N=10). The meta-analysis indicated significant effects across disorders and care settings for depression as well as for mental and physical quality of life and social role function (Cohen's d values, 0.20-0.33). Total health care costs did not differ between CCMs and comparison models. A systematic review largely confirmed and extended these findings across conditions and outcome domains. CCMs can improve mental and physical outcomes for individuals with mental disorders across a wide variety of care settings, and they provide a robust clinical and policy framework for care integration.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Health Forum
                JAMA Health Forum
                JAMA Health Forum
                American Medical Association
                2689-0186
                25 March 2022
                March 2022
                25 March 2022
                : 3
                : 3
                : e220212
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
                [2 ]Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
                [4 ]Department of Health Management and Policy, College for Public Health and Social Justice, St Louis University, St Louis, Missouri
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: January 19, 2022.
                Published: March 25, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.0212
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Qi AC et al. JAMA Health Forum.
                Corresponding Author: Kenton J. Johnston, PhD, Department of Health Management and Policy, College for Public Health and Social Justice, St Louis University, 3545 Lafayette Ave, Salus Center, Room 362, St Louis, MO 63104 ( kenton.johnston@ 123456slu.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Qi and Johnston had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Qi, Joynt Maddox, Johnston.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Qi, Johnston.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Qi, Johnston.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Johnston.
                Supervision: Johnston.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Joynt Maddox reported receiving grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute on Aging and personal fees from Centene Corp Health Policy Advisory Council outside the submitted work. Dr Johnston reported he received funding (grant R01MH125820) from the National Institute of Mental Health for this work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Article
                aoi220008
                10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.0212
                8956979
                ab6357e0-114e-404b-acd0-ee4f6a02e884
                Copyright 2022 Qi AC et al. JAMA Health Forum.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 22 October 2021
                : 19 January 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Comments

                Comments

                Comment on this article