MIPS Year 4 Changes to Improvement Activities
Added	IA_BE_25: Drug Cost Transparency IA_CC_18: Tracking of clinician’s relationship to and responsibility for a patient by reporting MACRA patient relationship codes
Modified	IA_PSPA_28: Completion of an Accredited Safety or Quality Improvement Program IA_PM_2: Anticoagulant Management Improvements IA_EPA_4: Additional improvements in access as a result of QIN/QIO TA IA_PSPA_19: Implementation of formal quality improvement methods, practice changes, or other practice improvement processes IA_BE_7: Participation in a QCDR, that promotes use of patient engagement tools IA_PSPA_7: Use of QCDR data for ongoing practice assessment and improvements IA_BMH_10: Completion of Collaborative Care Management Training Program
Removed	IA_PM_1: Participation in Systematic Anticoagulation Program IA_CC_3: Implementation of additional activity as a result of TA for improving care coordination IA_PSPA_14: Participation in Quality Improvement Initiatives IA_PSPA_5: Annual Registration in the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program IA_PSPA_24: Initiate CDC Training on Antibiotic Stewardship IA_BMH_3: Unhealthy alcohol use IA_BE_11: Participation in a QCDR, that promotes use of processes and tools that engage patients for adherence to treatment plan IA_BE_2: Use of QCDR to support clinical decision making IA_BE_9: Use of QCDR patient experience data to inform and advance improvements in beneficiary IA_BE_10: Participation in a QCDR, that promotes implementation of patient self-action plans IA_CC_6: Use of QCDR to promote standard practices, tools and processes in practice for improvement in care coordination IA_AHE_4: Leveraging a QCDR for use of standard questionnaires IA_AHE_2: Leveraging a QCDR to standardize processes for screening IA_PM_10: Use of QCDR data for quality improvement such as comparative analysis reports across patient populations IA_CC_4: TCPI Participation

CMS Proposes New Measure Specialty Sets, MIPS Value Pathways

The final rule for MIPS 2020 outlines the changes to the MIPS program coming in 2021. Read more here.

This week, CMS released the proposed rule for Year 4 of the Quality Payment Program (QPP). Many of the Year 3 requirements will be maintained going into the 2020 performance year; we highlighted the proposed changes in our blog post here. However, there are bigger proposed changes in store for Year 5 of the QPP starting in 2021.

In the latest release, CMS expressed an intention to move toward what they say would be a more streamlined MIPS program. To fulfill upon this vision, the agency is aiming to reduce reported complexities with data submission and confusion surrounding measure selection with a new framework they are calling MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs).

Check out key takeaways below from the proposed rule on MVPs and what CMS has put forth as a very loose framework for the future of the program.

CMS is soliciting public comment on the proposed rule until September 27, 2019 at 5 PM EST.

MIPS Value Pathways defined

The MVP framework would create sets of measure options that CMS says would be more relevant to clinician scope of practice and meaningful to patient care by connecting MIPS measures across the four performance categories specific to specialty or condition. It would also incorporate a set of administrative claims-based quality measures that focus on population health and provide data and feedback to clinicians. CMS says it intends to use the current MIPS specialty measure sets as a base framework for developing these new MVPs. The agency also indicated they will seek to enhance information provided to patients, with possible exploration of new forms of public reporting.

How does the MVP framework change MIPS?

If implemented, all MIPS-eligible clinicians would no longer choose their measures from a single inventory, but would instead fulfill measures and activities connected to a specialty or condition as a part of an MVP. This means the MIPS program would no longer require the same number of measures or activities for all clinicians.

CMS anticipates that an MVP would use a single benchmark for each measure, and all clinicians and groups in the MVP would be compared against the same standard. It is proposed that scoring policies would be evaluated to ensure scoring across MVPs is equitable, so that clinicians reporting a specific MVP are not unfairly advantaged. The agency says this would eliminate the need for special scoring policies and bonuses to incent selection of high priority or outcome measures, as clinicians would be required to report all measures in the MVP.

Additionally, MVPs will focus on bundling quality measures with existing, related cost measures and improvement activities as CMS sees feasible.

How will MIPS data collection be impacted by MVPs?

It is unclear at this time exactly how clinicians and groups will be expected to report data to satisfy measures under the new MVP framework. CMS says that the current MIPS performance measure collection types will continue to be used to the “extent possible,” creating some uneasiness for clinicians and industry leaders who have invested time and resources in their current reporting mechanisms. CMS is soliciting feedback around data submission mechanisms, particularly QCDRs and their role in the program. The agency maintains that a driving force behind the proposed changes is that the flexibility of the program in years 1-3 resulted in multiple benchmarks for each measure and specialty, hindering the ability of CMS to make meaningful comparisons.

Agency emphasizes patient experience and patient reported outcomes

The proposed rule also emphasized an increased focus on patient reported measures, including patient experience, satisfaction and outcomes in their performance measurement. The agency anticipates the MVP framework will provide more meaningful information to patients, which will enable them to make decisions about their care and achieve better outcomes.

CMS Example of Possible MIPS Value Pathway
MVP Example	Quality Measures	Cost Measures	Improvement Activities	Promoting Ineroperability
Preventive Health	Preventive Care and Screening: Tobacco Use: Screening and Cessation Intervention (Quality ID: 226) Osteoarthritis: Function and Pain Assessment (Quality ID: 109) Adult Immunization Status, proposed (Quality ID: TBD) Controlling High Blood Pressure (Quality ID: 236) PLUS: population health administrative claims quality measures (e.g., allcause hospital readmission)	Total Per Capita Cost (TPCC_1) Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB_1)	Chronic Care and Preventive Care for Empaneled Patients (IA_PM_13) Engage patients and families to guide improvement in the system of care (IA_BE_14) Collection and use of patient experience and satisfaction data on access (IA_EPA_3)	All measures in Promoting Interoperability***

blake August 1st, 2019 Categories: featured, MIPS Information, Patient Experience

Tags: CMS, improvement activities, macra, MIPS, QCDR, QPP, Quality, quality category, quality payment program

CMS Releases 2020 MIPS Proposed Rule

CMS has released the final rule for MIPS 2020. Read the key takeaways here.

If you’re participating in MIPS, you’ll need to know about the changes to the program in 2020. This week, CMS released the Quality Payment Program proposed rule for the next performance year. While their goal is to maintain many of the requirements from the 2019 performance year, there are some updates to the MIPS track. Here are the highlights of the proposed changes.

Quality and Cost performance category weights

In 2020, the Quality performance category weight will be reduced from 45 percent to 40 percent. The Cost category weight will increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.

Payment adjustment

The maximum negative payment adjustment will increase from -7% to -9% in 2020. Positive payment adjustments (not including exceptional performance) will increase from 7% to up to 9%.

Performance threshold

The performance threshold–the minimum number of points to avoid a negative payment adjustment–will increase from 30 points in 2019 to 45 points in 2020. The exceptional performance threshold, which determines additional positive payment adjustments, will increase to 80 points in 2020.

A full breakdown of proposed MIPS changes can be found in the table below. CMS is accepting feedback on the proposed rule at regulations.gov through September 27, 2019 with the file code CMS-1715-P.

CMS has also proposed larger changes to the program starting in 2021. Click here to read our summary of their new proposed framework.

For more information on the current MIPS performance year and how SurveyVitals can help you fulfill your requirements, visit our MIPS page or chat with us using the blue chat icon below.

Policy Area	Current Year 3 (Final Rule CY 2019)	Year 4 (Proposed Rule CY 2020)
Performance Category Weights	Quality: 45% Cost: 15% Promoting Interoperability: 25% Improvement Activities: 15%	Quality: 40% Cost: 20% Promoting Interoperability: 25% Improvement Activities: 15%
Quality Performance Category	Data Completeness Requirements Medicare Part B Claims measures: 60% of Medicare Part B patients for the performance period QCDR measures, MIPS CQMs, and eCQMs: 60% of clinician’s or group’s patients across all payers for the performance period Call for Measures CMS seeks measures that are: Applicable Feasible Reliable Valid at the individual clinician level Different from existing measures Measure Removal A quality measure may be considered for removal if the measure is no longer meaningful, such as measures that are topped out A measure would be considered for removal if a measure steward is no longer able to maintain the quality measure QCDR Measure Requirements QCDR measures must be beyond the measure concept phase of development CMS will show a preference for QCDR measures that are outcome-based rather than clinical process measures Measures should address significant variation in performance QCDR measures are approved for use in MIPS for a single performance period Measure Removal There is no formal policy for measure removal, as QCDR measures must be submitted for CMS approval on an annual basis as part of the self-nomination process.	Data Completeness Requirements Medicare Part B claims measures: 70% sample of Medicare Part B patients for the performance period QCDR measures, MIPS CQMs, and eCQMs: 70% sample of clinician’s or group’s patients across all payers for the performance period Note: If quality data is submitted selectively such that the data are unrepresentative of a MIPS eligible clinician or group’s performance, any such adat would not be true, accurate, or complete Call for Measures In addition to current requirements: Measures submitted in response to Call for Measures would be required to demonstrate a link to existing and related cost measures and improvement activities as appropriate and feasible Measure Removal In addition to current measure removal criteria: MIPS quality measures that do not meet case minimum and reporting volumes required for benchmarking for 2 consecutive years would be removed We may consider a MIPS quality measure for removal if we determine it is not available for MIPS Quality reporting by or on behalf of all MIPS eligible clinicians (including via third party intermediaries) QCDR Measure Requirements In instances in which multiple, similar QCDR measures exist that warrant approval, we may provisionally approve the individual QCDR measures for 1 year with the condition that QCDRs address certain areas of duplication with other approved QCDR measures in order to be considered for the program in subsequent years. Duplicative QCDR measures would not be approved if QCDRs do not elect to harmonize identified measures as requested by CMS within the allotted timeframe. QCDR Measure Rejections CMS is proposing the following guidelines to help QCDRs understand when a QCDR measure would likely be rejected during the annual self-nomination process: QCDR measures that are duplicative of an existing measure or one that has been removed from MIPS or legacy programs Existing QCDR measures that are “topped out” (though these may be resubmitted in future years) QCDR measures that are process-based (consideration given to the impact on the number of measures available for a specific specialty) or have no actionable quality action Considerations and evaluation of the measure’s performance data, to determine whether performance variance exists QCDR measures that have the potential for unintended consequences QCDR measures that split a single clinical practice/action into several measures or that focus on rare events QCDR measures that are “check-box” with no actionable quality action Existing QCDR measures that have been in MIPS for two years and have failed to reach benchmarking thresholds due to low adoption (unless a plan to improve adoption is submitted and approved) Whether the existing approved QCDR measure is no longer considered robust, in instances where new QCDR measures are considered to have a more vigorous quality action, where CMS preference is to include the new QCDR measure rather than requesting QCDR measure harmonization QCDR measures with clinician attribution issues, where the quality action is not under the direct control of the reporting clinician. (that is, the quality aspect being measured cannot be attributed to the clinician or is not under the direct control of the reporting clinician) QCDR measures that focus on rare events or “never events” in the measurement period
Improvement Activities Performance Category	Definition of Rural Area Rural area means a ZIP code designated as rural, using the most recent Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Area Health Resource File data set available. Patient-Centered Medical Home Criteria To be eligible for Patient-Centered Medical Home designation, the practice must meet one of the following criteria: The practice has received accreditation from one of four accreditation organizations that are nationally recognized: The Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Healthcare The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) The Joint Commission The Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC); OR The practice is participating in a Medicaid Medical Home Model or Medical Home Model; OR The practice is a comparable specialty practice that has received the NCQA Patient Centered Specialty Recognition Improvement Activities Inventory Added 1 new criterion, “Include a public health emergency as determined by the Secretary” Removed “Activities that may be considered for a Promoting Interoperability bonus” CMS Study on Factors Associated with Reporting Quality Measures MIPS eligible clinicians who successfully participate in the study receive full credit in the Improvement Activities performance category. Removal of Improvement Activities No formal policy but invited public comments on what criteria should be used to identify improvement activities for removal from the inventory. Requirement for Improvement Activity Credit for Groups Group or virtual group can attest to an improvement activity if at least one clinician in the TIN participates.	Definition of Rural Area Rural area is proposed to mean a ZIP code designated as rural by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) using the most recent FORHP Eligible ZIP Code file available. Patient-Centered Medical Home Criteria To be eligible for Patient-Centered Medical Home designation, the practice would need to meet one of the following criteria: The practice has received accreditation from an accreditation organization that is nationally recognized The practice is participating in a Medicaid Medical Home Model or Medical Home Model The practice is a comparable specialty practice that has received recognition through a specialty recognition program offered through a nationally recognized accreditation organization; OR The practice has received accreditation from other certifying bodies that have certified a large number of medical organizations and meet national guidelines, as determined by the Secretary. The Secretary must determine that these certifying bodies must have 500 or more certified member practices, and require practices to include the following: Have a personal physician/clinician in a team-based practice Have a whole-person orientation Provide coordination or integrated care Focus on quality and safety Provide enhanced access Improvement Activities Inventory Addition of 2 new Improvement Activities Modification of 7 existing Improvement Activities Removal of 15 existing Improvement Activities Please review Appendix 2 in the CY 2020 NPRM for a comprehensive look at the changes proposed to the inventory. CMS Study on Factors Associated with Reporting Quality Measures Study year 2019 (CY 2019) is the last year of the 3-year study, as stated in CY 2019 PFS final rule (83 FR 59776). CMS will not continue the study during the 2020 performance period. Final study results will be shared at a later date. Removal of Improvement Activities Establish factors to consider for removal of improvement activities from the Inventory. An activity would be considered for removal if: It is duplicative of another activity An alternative activity exists with stronger relationship to quality care or improvements in clinical practice The activity does not align with current clinical guidelines or practice The activity does not align with at least one meaningful measures area The activity does not align with Quality, Cost, or Promoting Interoperability performance categories There have been no attestations of the activity for 3 consecutive years The activity is obsolete Requirement for Improvement Activity Credit for Groups Group or virtual group would be able to attest to an improvement activity when at least 50% of MIPS eligible clinicians (in the group or virtual group) participate in or perform the activity At least 50% of a group’s NPIs must perform the same activity for the same continuous 90 days in the performance period
Promoting Interoperability Performance Category – Hospital-Based MIPS Eligible Clinicians in Groups	A group is identified as hospital-based and eligible for reweighting when 100% of the MIPS eligible clinicians in the group meet the definition of a hospital-based MIPS eligible clinician.	A group would be identified as hospital-based and eligible for reweighting if more than 75% of the NPIs in the group meet the definition of a hospital-based individual MIPS eligible clinician. For non-patient facing groups (more than 75% of the MIPS-eligible clinicians in the group are classified as non-patient facing) we would automatically reweight the Promoting Interoperability performance category. No change to definition of an individual hospital-based MIPS eligible clinician.
Promoting Interoperability Performance Category	Objectives and Measures One set of objectives and measures based on the 2015 Edition CEHRT Four objectives: ePrescribing, Health Information Exchange, Provider to Patient Exchange, and Public Health and Clinical Data Exchange Clinicians are required to report certain measures from each of the four objectives, unless an exclusion is claimed PTwo new measures for the e-Prescribing objective: Query of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) and Verify Opioid Treatment Agreement as optional with bonus points available	Objectives and Measures CMS would require a yes/no response for the Query of PDMP measure CMS would redistribute the points for the Support Electronic Referral Loops by Sending Health Information measure to the Provide Patients Access to Their Health Information measure if an exclusion is claimed
Cost Performance Category	Measures Total Per Capita Cost (TPCC) Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) 8 episode-based measures Case Minimums 10 for procedural episodes 20 for acute inpatient medical condition episodes Measure Attribution All measures are attributed at the TIN/NPI level for both individuals and groups Plurality of primary care services rendered by the clinician to determine attribution for the total per capita cost measure Plurality of Part B services billed during the index admission to determine attribution for the MSPB measure For procedural episodes, we attribute episodes to each MIPS eligible clinician who renders a trigger service (identified by HCPCS/CPT procedure codes) For acute inpatient medical condition episodes, we attribute episodes to each MIPS eligible clinician who bills inpatient evaluation and management (E&M) claim lines during a trigger inpatient hospitalization under a TIN that renders at least 30% of the inpatient E&M claim lines in that hospitalization	Measures TPCC measure (Revised) MSPB-C (MSPB Clinician) measure (Name and specification Revised) 8 existing episode-based measures 10 new episode-based measures Case Minimums No changes. Measure Attribution Measure attribution would be different for individuals and groups and would be defined in the measure specifications TPCC attribution would require E&M services to have an associated primary care service or a follow up E&M service from the same clinician group TPCC attribution would exclude certain clinicians who primarily deliver certain non-primary care services (e.g. general surgery) MSPB clinician attribution changes would have a different methodology for surgical and medical patients No changes proposed for attribution in episode-based measures (existing and new)
Final Score Calculation: Performance Category Reweighting due to Data Integrity Issues	No policy to account for data integrity concerns Several scenarios for reweighting have previously been finalized, including extreme and uncontrollable events (all performance categories) and hardship exemptions specific to the Promoting Interoperability performance category	We would reweight performance categories in rare events due to compromised data outside the control of the MIPS eligible clinician. MIPS eligible clinicians or third party intermediaries can inform CMS that they believe they are impacted by a relevant event by providing information on the event (CMS may also independently learn of qualifying events) If we determine that reweighting for compromised data is appropriate, we would generally redistribute to the Promoting Interoperability performance category as well as the Quality performance category In rare cases, we would redistribute to the Cost performance category
Performance Threshold / Additional Performance Threshold / Payment Adjustment	Performance Threshold is set at 30 points Additional performance threshold set at 75 points for exceptional performance As required by statute, the maximum negative payment adjustment is – 7% Positive payment adjustments can be up to 7% (not including additional positive payment adjustments for exceptional performance) but are multiplied by a scaling factor to achieve budget neutrality, which could result in an adjustment above or below 7%	Performance Threshold would be set at 45 points Additional performance threshold would be set at 80 points for exceptional performance As required by statute, the maximum negative payment adjustment is -9% Positive payment adjustments can be up to 9% (not including additional positive adjustments for exceptional performance) but are multiplied by a scaling factor to achieve budget neutrality, which could result in an adjustment above or below 9%
Targeted Review	MIPS eligible clinicians and groups may submit a targeted review request by September 30 following the release of the MIPS payment adjustment factor(s) with performance feedback.	All requests for targeted review would be required to be submitted within 60 days of the release of the MIPS payment adjustment factor(s) with performance feedback.

blake July 30th, 2019 Categories: featured, MIPS Information, Patient Experience

Tags: Improvement, improvement activities, macra, MIPS, patient experience, QCDR, QPP, Quality, quality category, quality payment program

Celebrate National Healthcare Quality Week with SurveyVitals!

Group of doctors walking through hallway

October 21-27 is National Healthcare Quality Week. This week is dedicated by the National Association for Healthcare Quality to celebrating the contributions professionals have made to improve healthcare quality.

At SurveyVitals, we understand the value of improving patient safety and outcomes, performance and process improvement, and utilizing data analysis to drive improvement. In fact, these are the things that have shaped our solution. Since 2002, we have built into our system tools and features that help our clients make data-driven decisions to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. We have worked with industry experts and listened to the needs of our clients to be sure our solution helps achieve quality improvement goals.

We want to thank all of our clients for your hard work in providing a higher quality of care and better patient experience. Did you know there are a few ways you can celebrate with SurveyVitals?

Recognize top performers with SurveyVitals’ Friday kudos emails (SPSQ only), which spotlight weekly top performing staff members in your organization.
Celebrate your organization’s Top 10% Awards. These awards represent exceptional work toward higher healthcare quality and deserve special recognition! Top 10% Awards are awarded quarterly and annually to practices who rank in the top 10% for composite score for APSQ and SPSQ surveys.
Try out Challenge Mode in your portal. Issue a challenge to providers in your organization in any questions or question areas. Offer special recognition for whoever tops the leaderboard. Nothing encourages a higher quality of care quite like a bit of friendly competition!
Enroll providers in bi-weekly positive kudos emails.
Share your verified ratings online! With the new Public Review feature, you can proudly display verified patient ratings and comments to show the community the level of care you provide.

How does your organization plan on celebrating National Healthcare Quality Week?

blake October 25th, 2018 Categories: featured, Patient Experience, Product Features

Tags: National Healthcare Quality Week, patient experience, Quality

Working MOCA 2.0? SurveyVitals Can Help

The redesigned MOCA 2.0 (Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology) allows anesthesia diplomates to complete a variety of new activities to meet the Part 4 Quality Improvement requirement. Diplomates are required to earn a minimum of 50 points during their ten-year MOCA 2.0 cycle by choosing and completing quality improvement activities most relevant to their practice.

Where does SurveyVitals come in?

You may be able to use the SurveyVitals solution to fulfill the requirement by completing an improvement plan based on A) 360 professional reviews, or B) patient experience of care surveys. The point value for this activity is 1 point per hour spent on the activity, for a total of up to 25 points.

SurveyVitals’ Anesthesia 360° solution offers surveys for patients, practitioners, administrators, surgeons, and peers to give you a comprehensive look at patient and professional satisfaction.

Don’t know where to start? Your survey dashboard provides a detailed visual of areas scoring the lowest and receiving the most low-score alerts, allowing for quick identification of improvement opportunities. SurveyVitals’ robust reporting options allow you to easily track and measure improvement in these areas over time based on near real-time patient feedback.

How can I attest to meeting this requirement?

Diplomates must attest to the activity on the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) website using the ABA-approved template found here. Your SurveyVitals data can be used to summarize both the Data Summary and the Change in Practice.

More information about the MOCA 2.0 Part 4 requirement can be found on the ABA website.

blake June 1st, 2018 Categories: Anesthesia, Product Features

Tags: anesthesia, anesthesiologist, CRNA, diplomates, Improvement, maintenance of certification anesthesia, MOCA, Quality

Accessing Your PQRS Feedback Report

Update: PQRS feedback reports for program year 2015 are now available (via CMS, 9/26/16). 2017 PQRS negative payment adjustment letters will be distributed shortly. Informal review will be open until November 30, 2016 at 11:59 P.M. EST.

What is PQRS?

The Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) is a program established and managed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The federal initiative aims to incentivize the reporting of quality data by individual Eligible Professionals (EPs) and group practices to Medicare by tying it to reimbursement rates. As all individual EP’s and group practices likely know by now, failing to satisfactorily report PQRS data will result in a negative payment adjustment under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS). Those who reported satisfactorily for program year 2015 will avoid the negative 2% payment adjustment in 2017.

When will PQRS feedback reports for program year 2015 be available?

CMS announced that the PQRS feedback reports for program year 2015 will be available sometime this month, September 2016. These reports indicate whether or not your practice met all reporting requirements and if you’ll be subject to the future negative payment adjustment. Additionally, CMS announced that payment adjustment letters are projected to be sent in late summer or early fall. We recommend reviewing your feedback report as soon as made available to ensure you have enough time to properly review and request an informal review should your organization determine there was an error or CMS incorrectly assessed your practice. (Check back for updates!)

How to access your PQRS Feedback Report

To access your PQRS feedback report, you will need an Enterprise Identity Management System (EIDM) account, which can be established using the CMS Enterprise Portal at https://portal.cms.gov. Once logged in, select the “PV-PQRS” tab and the “Feedback Reports” option to view your reports. The PQRS feedback can be viewed at three different levels: provider level, reporting mechanism level, and PQRS measure level. Detailed user guides can be found on the QualityNet portal page.

Quality Resource and Usage Reports

In addition to PQRS feedback reports, Quality and Resource Use Reports(QRURs) are also made available through the CMS Enterprise Portal. These reports show performance on all of the quality and cost measures at the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) level. These results are used by CMS to calculate the 2017 Medicare Value-Based Payment Modifier. CMS makes two types of QRURs available: the Mid-Year QRUR and the Annual QRUR. The Mid-Year QRUR (MY-QRURs) was made available in April 2016 and was for informational purposes only. Groups of 2 or more EPs and physicians who are subject to the 2017 Value-Based Payment Modifier can use the Annual QRUR to see how the value modifier will apply to the Medicare PFS physician payments. The QRUR is for informational purposes for all other groups and solo practitioners.

Requesting an informal review

If you believe that there was an error or a negative payment adjustment was applied incorrectly, you can request an informal review of the payment adjustment determination. If the review process concludes that satisfactory reporting actually occurred, CMS will reverse the application of the negative payment adjustment. Unfortunately, the informal review decision is final. CMS has no formal appeals process in place at this time.

To submit an informal review request, visit the Quality Reporting Communication Support Page (CSP). Informal review requests for 2015 may be submitted in the fall of 2016, and CMS will announce when this page is available. Remember, the informal review period is limited so review your feedback and get your requests in as soon as the page is available.

blake September 21st, 2016 Categories: featured, MIPS Information

Tags: PQRS, Quality

Press Release – SurveyVitals Partners with athenahealth’s ‘More Disruption Please’ Program

Timely Patient Feedback Can Help Providers Improve Their Patients’ Perceptions of Care and Reduce Malpractice Risk

SurveyVitals®, an automated, cost-effective quality and patient satisfaction survey solution provider, today announced a partnership with athenahealth® through athenahealth’s ‘More Disruption Please’ program. SurveyVitals is now part of the athenahealth Marketplace offerings. Together, the companies will work to link athenahealth’s growing network of more than 67,000 health care providers with SurveyVitals to improve their patients’ perceptions of care and reduce malpractice risk.

“SurveyVitals delivers a high-value quality tool,” said Bob Vosburgh, President of SurveyVitals. “Unlike traditional paper surveys, our real-time solution truly helps providers improve patients’ perceptions of care. Patient satisfaction measures are already being incorporated into many QCDRs (Qualified Clinical Data Registries) to meet PQRS (Physician Quality Reporting System) requirements. Now is the time to establish a quality program, and we can help. We’re thrilled to be integrated with athenahealth since it allows our mutual clients to start gathering patient feedback with just a few clicks. Detailed reporting and notifications guide providers toward real improvement.”

athenahealth is a cloud-based services company with a vision to build an information backbone to help make health care work as it should. This relationship will allow SurveyVitals to spread awareness of athenahealth’s cloud-based based services to clients who are looking for an EHR partner who delivers proven clinical and financial results so providers can stay focused on care.

About SurveyVitals

SurveyVitals helps improve patient care by administering automated, electronic patient satisfaction surveys on behalf of healthcare providers. They help practices and providers Get Better™. Now in their 13th year, they continue to disrupt the outdated model of expensive paper surveys that garner low response rates and provide delayed feedback. Their solution is used by thousands of providers across 58 specialties, and they have millions of surveys in their national baseline.

Read the official release.

blake September 2nd, 2015 Categories: featured, Patient Experience, Press Release

Tags: Improvement, Quality, Reduce Malpractice Risk

MIPS 2021: Proposed Rule Key Takeaways

MIPS Value Pathways

APM Performance Pathway

Performance Category Weights

Performance Threshold

Performance Categories

Quality Category

Improvement Activities Category

Cost Category

COVID-19 Flexibility Scoring Proposals

MIPS and SurveyVitals

MIPS 2021: MVPs and QCDR Changes Coming

MIPS 2020: Key Takeaways

Provider Spotlight: Clint Allred, CRNA, Anesthesia Associates of Boise