Secretary Azar says HHS may cease reporting requirements for MIPS “value-based” care. Perhaps you’re beginning to think that they are finally hearing us, right?
However reading further, things get murky fast:
Instead of requiring physicians who participate in MIPS to submit patient data, the proposal suggests having the government use claims data and patient surveys to grade doctors in the program. “We would be able to independently look at data ourselves to decide their compliance with the quality programs rather than their having to even report anything,” Azar said at Thursday’s hearing.
Here’s what some physicians are saying about this “new direction” from HHS:
- I’m not going to celebrate just yet. Think of how often HHS/CMS have replaced a bad idea they had, with an even worse idea. If they begin using patient surveys (Press Gainey, etc.) to determine whether or not physicians are given a bonus or penalty, I think that could actually make this awful MIPS experiment even worse.
- We must be careful what we ask for- and we must control the conversation. There is no reason the government needs to be involved at all – that’s the beautiful thing about the free market – the patient receiving the service determines the value – but the patient must have an appreciable fiduciary responsibility and they vote with their wallet – good restaurants are busy – bad restaurants are closed – really quite simple.
- MACRA/MIPS is fatally flawed. Patients are individuals and cannot be reduced to an algorithm.
- There is nothing salvageable or workable in the MIPS system. There is no way on paper and with claims that physician skill, judgement or even outcomes can be legitimately assessed. Further, major institutions are rethinking patient evaluations of physicians, realizing that it is a one way system-i.e. there is no way to evaluate the validity of the patient evaluation and no way for the physician to respond.
In my opinion our best/only meaningful way of reform is to condemn the entire MACRA/MIPS construct as wasteful and invalid without adding anything to patient care. In fact a point can be made that it detracts from actual care.
- We should have a say in the type of patient survey they set up. And this should decide only incentives not penalties. The only difference between this and MIPS is that with MIPS we can lose money after spending it on data collection, whereas here we avoid double jeopardy because they do their own data collection and we don’t have to attest to anything. Overall I think what they have suggested is better than MIPS.
- I just had a very cranky daughter complain about the resident who called her sister rather than her when her mother took a turn for the worst. She would give that resident a failing grade. So much subjectivity makes those evaluation meaningless. Also, when grading a physician on outcomes, which physician can take credit for which specific outcome? Many physicians are often involved. This evaluation scheme is totally unworkable.
I think you’ll agree there is more than a bit of skepticism that CMS is going to meaningfully change things for the better. Tell us what you think!