Strategies for the Changing Quality Landscape-Strategies for the Changing Quality Landscape

Video Transcription

Video Summary

In this video, multiple panelists discuss the impact of quality incentive programs like MIPS and APMs on healthcare delivery. Dr. Scheibers notes that these requirements and incentives have not significantly affected his day-to-day actions, as most providers focus on avoiding penalties rather than winning under MIPS. Dr. Slocum explains that her institution gives more importance to organizational level incentives and the ACO program in their practice, although they engage in MIPS reporting at the tax ID number level. Dr. Malani talks about his institution's creation of a value office and employment of data scientists to justify the care they provide. Reporting requirements have been burdensome for them, and they track quality measures for all patient encounters, not just Medicare patients. The creation of APMs has its challenges, despite the 5% incentive payment, and his hospital is looking into using MIPS value pathways to ease reporting obligations. Overall, the panelists suggest that providers prioritize delivering high-quality care and avoiding penalties, rather than focusing on maximizing incentives.<br /><br />The panel discussion brings up various points about the impact and challenges of quality incentive programs. They highlight the need for more meaningful metrics, aligned with specific specialties, and suggest changes like longer timelines and increased transparency in performance metrics. They express concerns about the limited input from physicians in policy decisions and advocate for physicians to actively participate in shaping quality improvement initiatives. They urge physicians to communicate with practice managers and department chairs to understand how their value is measured and advocate for changes aligned with their clinical practice. It is also recommended that physicians engage with state and national organizations to amplify their voices and influence policy decisions. The panel concludes by emphasizing the importance of outcome capturing and defining quality at the individual and facility levels as essential steps towards transitioning to a value-based care system. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the need for physician involvement in improving and shaping quality incentive programs to promote high-value care.

Keywords

quality incentive programs

MIPS

APMs

healthcare delivery

penalties

organizational level incentives

value office

data scientists

reporting requirements

physician input

policy decisions

high-value care