What study data on urology MIPS reporting reveal

In this video, Avinash Maganty, MD, discusses notable findings from the Urology Practice study, “Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Quality Reporting in Urology Practices.” Maganty is a Society of Urologic Oncology fellow at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Transcription:

The first main finding was after adjusting for individual physician characteristics as well as the characteristics of the actual patient case mix for each physician, we found that small practices performed poorly compared with larger practices. Interestingly, we also found that those physicians who received penalties were actually more likely to switch or change practices, or rather consolidate to a larger practice context compared with those who did not receive penalties. Finally, we observed that practices that cared for a larger share of vulnerable patients, which in this particular work, we defined as dual-eligible beneficiaries—those that are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, who tend to be a more vulnerable population—were likely to actually perform poorly within the program as well. In terms of whether this surprised us, I think this was largely consistent with our hypotheses based on the initial concerns that I mentioned—that this program may not really be measuring quality that's impactful for patients, but rather be reflective of an ability to track and report measures.

This transcription was edited for clarity.