Physician Electronic Health Record Use After Changes in US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Documentation Requirements.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Maisel N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10182425 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Physician Electronic Health Record Use After Changes in US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Documentation Requirements.
Maisel Natalya N Thombley Robert R Overhage J Marc JM Blake Kathleen K Sinsky Christine A CA Adler-Milstein Julia J
JAMA health forum 20230505 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify roles physicians assumed as part of new health care delivery models and related strategies that facilitated physician engagement across 21 Health Care Innovation Award (HCIA) programs.Data sourcesSite-level in-depth interviews, conducted from 2014 to 2015 (N = 672) with program staff, leadership, and partners (including 95 physicians) and direct observations.Study designNORC conducted a mixed-method evaluation, including two rounds of qualitative data collected via site visits and telephone interviews.Data collection/extraction methodsWe used qualitative thematic coding for data from 21 programs actively engaging physicians as part of HCIA interventions.Principal findingsEstablishing physician champions and ensuring an innovation-values fit between physicians and programs, including the strategies programs employed, facilitated engagement. Among engagement practices identified in this study, tailoring team working styles to meet physician preferences and conducting physician outreach and education were the most common successful approaches.ConclusionsWe describe engagement strategies derived from a diverse range of programs. Successful programs considered physicians' values and engagement as components of process and policy, rather than viewing them as exogenous factors affecting innovation adoption. These types of approaches enabled programs to accelerate acceptance of innovations within organizations.
| S-EPMC5264033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Healthcare organizations are increasing social determinants of health (SDH) screening and documentation in the electronic health record (EHR). Physicians may use SDH data for medical decision-making and to provide referrals to social care resources. Physicians must be aware of these data to use them, however, and little is known about physicians' awareness of EHR-based SDH documentation or documentation capabilities. We therefore leveraged national physician survey data to measure level of awareness and variation by physician, practice, and EHR characteristics to inform practice- and policy-based efforts to drive medical-social care integration. We identify higher levels of social needs documentation awareness among physicians practicing in community health centers, those participating in payment models with social care initiatives, and those aware of other advanced EHR functionalities. Findings indicate that there are opportunities to improve physician education and training around new EHR-based SDH functionalities.
| S-EPMC9667172 | biostudies-literature
Project description:STUDY OBJECTIVES:Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement for positive airway pressure (PAP) devices for obstructive sleep apnea treatment is dependent on patients meeting adherence expectations within the first 3 months on therapy. Adherence is defined as usage of the device for at least 4 hours per night on 70% of nights during a consecutive 30-day period. We hypothesize that the adherence pattern may be established beyond this initial period, which may limit the opportunity to treat many patients. METHODS:Treatment and adherence data from PAP devices were monitored via wireless modems for 42 consecutive PAP-naïve military veterans who completed 1 year of nightly monitoring. Their baseline characteristics were as follows: age (mean ± standard deviation) 58.5 ± 12.5 years; body mass index 33.7 ± 5.7 kg/m2; diagnostic apnea-hypopnea index (pretreatment) 28.1 ± 18.5 events/h; apnea-hypopnea index on PAP: 4.3 ± 3.3 events/h. We examined daily, monthly, quarterly, semiannual, and annual reports, and the best 30-day adherence report for each quarter. RESULTS:In the first 3 months, 19 of 42 participants were adherent by CMS criteria, and 23 of 42 participants were not. Of the 19 adherent participants, 13 remained adherent and 6 became nonadherent or stopped PAP treatment for the remainder of the year. In the 23 initially nonadherent participants, 16 stopped PAP treatment, and 7 participants (30.4%) became adherent (using CMS criteria) during the rest of the year. Thus, PAP adherence during the first 3 months was predictive for the rest of the year in only 68.4%. PAP nonadherence during the first 3 months was predictive for further nonadherence in only 69.6% of the cases. Overall, this led to a 65% sensitivity and 72% specificity of using adherence at 3 months in predicting adherence at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:CMS adherence criteria affecting PAP coverage are restrictive and can result in the withholding of therapy in many patients who otherwise might become adherent. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov, Title: Remote Monitoring in Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Identifier: NCT01678560, URL: https:// clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01678560.
| S-EPMC6374085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Open Payments Database (OPD) discloses financial transactions between manufacturers and physicians. The concordance of OPD versus self-reported conflicts of interest (COI) is unknown.Materials and methodsOur objectives were to compare (1) industry and self-disclosed COI in clinical literature, (2) payments within each disclosure level, and (3) industry- and self-disclosed COI and payments by specialty. This was an observational study. PubMed was searched for clinical studies accepted for publication from January 2014 to June 2016. Author and OPD-disclosed COIs were compared. Articles and authors were divided into full disclosure, incomplete industry disclosure, incomplete self-disclosure, and no COI. Primary outcome (differences in reported COI per article) was assessed using McNemar's test. Payment differences were compared using Kruskal-Wallis test.ResultsOPD- and self-disclosed COI differed (65.0% discordance rate by article, P < 0.001). Percentages of authors within each disclosure category differed between specialties (P < 0.001). Hematology articles exhibited the highest discordance rate (79.0%) and received the highest median payment for incomplete self-disclosure ($30,812).ConclusionsSignificant discordance exists between self- and OPD-reported COI. Additional research is needed to determine reasons for these differences.
| S-EPMC5643021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hospitals typically use Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) administrative reports as the standard of heart failure (HF) admission quantification. We aimed to evaluate the HF admission population identified by CMS HRRP definition of HF hospital admissions compared with a clinically based HF definition. We evaluated all hospital admissions at an academic medical center over 16 months in patients with Medicare fee-for service benefits and age ≥65 years. We compared the CMS HRRP HF definition against an electronic HF identification algorithm. Admissions identified solely by the CMS HF definition were manually reviewed by HF providers. Admissions confirmed with having decompensated HF as the primary problem by manual review or by the HF ID algorithm were deemed "HF positive," whereas those refuted were "HF negative." Of the 1672 all-cause admissions evaluated, 708 (42%) were HF positive. The CMS HF definition identified 440 admissions: sensitivity (54%), specificity (94%), positive predictive value (87%), negative predictive value (74%). The CMS HF definition missed 324 HF admissions because of inclusion/exclusion criteria (15%) and decompensated HF being a secondary diagnosis (85%). The CMS HF definition falsely identified 56 admissions as HF. The most common admission reasons in this cohort included elective pacemaker or defibrillator implantations (n = 13), noncardiac dyspnea (n = 9), left ventricular assist device complications (n = 8), and acute coronary syndrome (n = 6). The CMS HRRP HF report is a poor representation of an institution's HF admissions because of limitations in administrative coding and the HRRP HF report inclusion/exclusion criteria.
| S-EPMC6490358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Five-Star measure for nursing homes is designed with input from expert panels about the importance of multiple quality indicators. Consumers may assign different values to these indicators, creating different 5-star ratings.ObjectiveTo compare nursing homes' rankings based on the CMS Five-Star measure with rankings based on consumers' judgment about the importance of the same quality indicators.Design, setting, and participantsIn this quality improvement study, CMS Five-Star data were linked with a measure calculated from CMS quality indicators and consumer values obtained from a national survey. Data covered the last quarter of 2016 and the first three quarters of 2017. The study included 10 676 nursing homes, comprising 69.8% of those with reported Five-Star measures. The national survey included adults, either nursing home residents or their family members who reported being familiar with the quality of care their relative received. Data analysis was performed from January 2019 to February 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe contingent valuation method was administered via the survey to obtain consumers' relative values of the quality indicators, and statistical analyses were used to create the contingent valuation measure. Agreement in nursing home rankings was assessed using the Five-Star measure, which is based on weights developed by expert panels, compared with rankings based on the contingent valuation measure.ResultsAmong 10 676 study nursing homes with a mean (SD) of 119.4 (59.4) beds, 7845 (73.5%) were for profit, 6424 (61.8%) were part of a chain, and 8009 (75.0%) were urban. The 4310 survey respondents (mean [SD] age, 39.9 [15.6] years; 1143 [26.5%] men; 3448 [80%] white) included mostly family members (3879 participants [90.0%]). The Pearson correlation coefficient (0.65) and weighted κ statistics (0.48) indicated only moderate agreement between ranking of nursing homes' performance by the 2 measures and disagreement on ranking for approximately one-half of the nursing homes.Conclusions and relevanceCurrent nursing home report cards might not reflect consumers' values and the relative importance consumers place on each of the quality indicators that compose the overall Five-Star measure. Quality report cards might be more relevant to consumers by augmenting the Five-Star measure with a measure reflecting consumers' preferences. It is unknown whether these conclusions are generalizable to other report cards, such as Hospital and Home Health Compare, without conducting similar studies for these report cards.
| S-EPMC7225897 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: To evaluate the availability of published comparative real-world evidence (RWE) studies in Medicare patients for the ten drugs set to undergo Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) price negotiations in 2026. Materials & methods: A scoping review was completed in MEDLINE/PubMed to evaluate the availability of comparative RWE investigations conducted among Medicare-eligible patient populations in the US for the following drugs: apixaban, rivaroxaban, sitagliptin, ibrutinib, empagliflozin, etanercept, dapagliflozin, sacubitril/valsartan, ustekinumab and insulin aspart. Results: Of the 170 real-world comparative studies identified, 55 (32.4%) used Medicare real-world data (RWD) while 34 (20.0%) used commercial claims data in conjunction with either Medicare Advantage or Medicare Supplementary databases. The number of studies varied considerably by drug with apixaban and rivaroxaban studies accounting for the majority (i.e., 67.1%) of comparative RWE studies. Approximately a third or less of the comparative RWE studies were conducted in CMS RWD per drug. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate there is a considerable amount of comparative RWE for apixaban, rivaroxaban, and etanercept but limited comparative RWE for the other drugs set to undergo CMS price negotiations in 2026; additionally, our findings set up a number of next steps (e.g., risk of bias assessments) for further exploration of the available evidence base. Overall, CMS and manufacturers should consider proactively generating high-quality comparative RWE studies in the Medicare population to ensure that future price negotiations are based on robust evidence.
| S-EPMC10690442 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the largest national pay-for-performance program and the first to afford emergency clinicians unique financial incentives for quality measurement and improvement. With little known regarding its impact on emergency clinicians, we sought to describe participation in the MIPS and examine differences in performance scores and payment adjustments based on reporting affiliation and reporting strategy.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2018 Quality Payment Program (QPP) Experience Report data set. We categorized emergency clinicians by their reporting affiliation (individual, group, MIPS alternative payment model [APM]), MIPS performance scores, and Medicare Part B payment adjustments. We calculated performance scores for common quality measures contributing to the quality category score if reported through qualified clinical data registries (QCDRs) or claims-based reporting strategies.ResultsIn 2018, a total of 59,828 emergency clinicians participated in the MIPS-1,246 (2.1%) reported as individuals, 43,404 (72.5%) reported as groups, and 15,178 (25.4%) reported within MIPS APMs. Clinicians reporting as individuals earned lower overall MIPS scores (median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 30.8 [15.0-48.2] points) than those reporting within groups (median [IQR] = 88.4 [49.3-100.0]) and MIPS APMs (median [IQR] = 100.0 [100.0-100.0]; p < 0.001) and more frequently incurred penalties with a negative payment adjustment. Emergency clinicians had higher measure scores if reporting QCDR or QPP non-emergency medicine specialty set measures.ConclusionsEmergency clinician participation in national value-based programs is common, with one in four participating through MIPS APMs. Those employing specific strategies such as QCDR and group reporting received the highest MIPS scores and payment adjustments, emphasizing the role that reporting strategy and affiliation play in the quality of care.
| S-EPMC8766873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePredicting payments for particular conditions or populations is essential for research, benchmarking, public reporting, and calculations for population-based programs. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) models often group codes into disease categories, but using single, rather than grouped, diagnostic codes and leveraging present on admission (POA) codes may enhance these models.ObjectiveTo determine whether changes to the candidate variables in CMS models would improve risk models predicting patient total payment within 30 days of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness research study used data from Medicare fee-for-service hospitalizations for AMI, HF, and pneumonia at acute care hospitals from July 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015. Payments across multiple care settings, services, and supplies were included and adjusted for geographic and policy variations, corrected for inflation, and winsorized. The same data source was used but varied for the candidate variables and their selection, and the method used by CMS for public reporting that used grouped codes was compared with variations that used POA codes and single diagnostic codes. Combinations of use of POA codes, separation of index admission diagnoses from those in the previous 12 months, and use of individual International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes instead of grouped diagnostic categories were tested. Data analysis was performed from December 4, 2017, to June 10, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe models' goodness of fit was compared using root mean square error (RMSE) and the McFadden pseudo R2.ResultsAmong the 1 943 049 total hospitalizations of the study participants, 343 116 admissions were for AMI (52.5% male; 37.4% aged ≤74 years), 677 044 for HF (45.5% male; 25.9% aged ≤74 years), and 922 889 for pneumonia (46.4% male; 28.2% aged ≤74 years). The mean (SD) 30-day payment was $23 103 ($18 221) for AMI, $16 365 ($12 527) for HF, and $17 097 ($12 087) for pneumonia. Each incremental model change improved the pseudo R2 and RMSE. Incorporating all 3 changes improved the pseudo R2 of the patient-level models from 0.077 to 0.129 for AMI, from 0.042 to 0.129 for HF, and from 0.114 to 0.237 for pneumonia. Parallel improvements in RMSE were found for all 3 conditions.Conclusions and relevanceLeveraging POA codes, separating index from previous diagnoses, and using single diagnostic codes improved payment models. Better models can potentially improve research, benchmarking, public reporting, and calculations for population-based programs.
| S-EPMC6694388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectiveThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating, established in 2016, is a summary of publicly available quality information for acute care hospitals. In July 2023, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals became eligible to receive a CMS Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating for the first time. Our objective was to compare performance in quality ratings among VHA and non-VHA hospitals.MethodsWe used the hospital quality measure scores posted to Care Compare on Medicare.gov as of January 2023 as our primary data set. We conducted a pair of analyses to characterize the performance of VHA hospitals compared to non-VHA hospitals: an overall analysis including all rated hospitals, and a matched analysis in which only a single nearby hospital was included for each VHA hospital.ResultsOf the 4518 non-VHA hospitals, 2962 (65.6%) received a Star Rating, compared to 114 (84%) of 136 VHA hospitals. VHA hospitals tended to receive higher ratings overall (one-star: 8%; two-star: 11%; three-star: 14%; four-star: 35%; five-star: 32%) than non-VHA (one-star: 8%; two-star: 22%; three-star: 29%; four-star: 26%; five-star: 15%). A similar pattern was observed in the matched analysis.ConclusionsVHA hospitals tended to perform better on the Overall Star Rating compared to non-VHA hospitals, as evidenced by being more likely to receive a four- or five-star rating. The eligibility of VHA hospitals to receive an Overall Star Rating signifies an important addition to the program that will allow Veterans to make more informed healthcare decisions.
| S-EPMC11874188 | biostudies-literature