Quality & Regulatory Affairs  |   September 2018
The Case for Quality Measures: Process Realities vs. Policy Distractions
Author Affiliations
  • Sheila R. Barnett, M.D., FASA
    Committee on Performance and Outcomes Measurement
    Chair
Article Information
Quality Improvement / Quality & Regulatory Affairs
Quality & Regulatory Affairs   |   September 2018
The Case for Quality Measures: Process Realities vs. Policy Distractions
ASA Monitor 9 2018, Vol.82, 60-63.
ASA Monitor 9 2018, Vol.82, 60-63.
Just over two years ago, U.S. physicians, including physician anesthesiologists, started participating in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) in accordance with the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). MIPS replaced previous quality programs to consolidate quality and incentive programs under a single umbrella for physicians, otherwise known to Medicare as “eligible clinicians” (ECs). For participating ECs, quality measures are reported for one of the four MIPS components that result in either positive or negative payments. The underlying premise of the MIPS system assumes that it is possible to: 1) identify measures that truly assess meaningful outcomes or quality; 2) collect data on measures without creating a substantial burden to the EC or the system; and 3) assign an accurate and “fair” payment adjustment.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
0 Comments
Submit a Comment
Submit A Comment

Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest. Comments are moderated.

Name
Affiliation & Institution
I have a potential conflict of interest
Comment Title
Comment


This feature is available to Subscribers Only
ASA Member Login or Create an Account ×