"We'll capture them all up front, then we'll figure out which ones to submit to CMS later," they said. But it turned out that they were having a hard time convincing physicians to go into that EHR screen at all because it was so heinous. Hence the room full of data entry folks.
MIPS is complicated to begin with; and for complicated health systems, it can get REALLY complicated. They have physicians reporting under multiple Tax ID Numbers (TINs), and often many completely different specialties that ended up sharing a single TIN. Assuming they're reporting as a group (GPRO), that means they often pick "lowest common denominator" measures centered around primary care. This burdens their already-overworked Primary Care Providers with additional data entry, and it effectively excludes many hospitalists, surgeons, and other specialists from quality reporting - certainly from any quality metrics that matter to them.
But with ever-increasing risk from mandatory bundled payments, Accountable Care Organizations and other advanced payment models, and the upcoming cost component of MIPS, I'm hearing from more and more of these enterprises that they can no longer afford to make quality something that only the Primary Care Providers and care coordinators worry about. It's something that involves the specialists too - for example, if a hospitalist fails to talk with a patient about their advance care planning, that patient could end up receiving a very costly and unpleasant intervention that perhaps they didn't want. Getting buy-in from the specialists, and giving them a way to measure their success on these metrics, is vital.
Thinking back to the room full of data entry specialists reading charts, I'm struck by the gap between the ostensible intention of these quality programs (improve the quality of care by rewarding physicians who follow evidence-based care) versus their result (the physicians are not engaged, and the hospital suffers additional costs to hire a room full of people to read their charts and enter data into a registry). There is a better way to engage specialists in quality programs and to actually improve outcomes in the process, but it has to meet them where they are - which is not necessarily sitting in front of a computer - and it has to offer them targeted measures that are relevant to their specialty, not just smoking cessation.
At pMD, we say: bring it on! We love working with specialists of all kinds, and we've developed some innovative tools that help with measure selection and targeted mobile data capture during hospital rounds and immediately after surgeries. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for MIPS, but the future is bright for organizations that embrace their own complexity and find a nuanced solution that will work for them and their physicians.