Association of Clinician Health System Affiliation With Outpatient Performance Ratings in the Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System

• Published in: JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 2020-09, Vol.324 (10), p.984-992
• Main Authors: Johnston, Kenton J, Wiemken, Timothy L, Hockenberry, Jason M, Figueroa, Jose F, Joynt Maddox, Karen E
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Ambulatory Care Facilities; Cross-Sectional Studies; Delivery of Health Care; Delivery of Health Care, Integrated; Employee Performance Appraisal; Female; Government programs; Health care; Humans; Male; Medicare; Medicare - economics; Organizational Affiliation; Original Investigation; Payment systems; Payments; Physician Incentive Plans; Physicians; Primary care; Reimbursement, Incentive; Rural areas; Safety-net Providers; United States
• ISSN: 0098-7484; 1538-3598
• DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.13136

IMPORTANCE: Integration of physician practices into health systems composed of hospitals and multispecialty practices is increasing in the era of value-based payment. It is unknown how clinicians who affiliate with such health systems perform under the new mandatory Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) relative to their peers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between the health system affiliations of clinicians and their performance scores and value-based reimbursement under the 2019 MIPS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Publicly reported data on 636 552 clinicians working at outpatient clinics across the US were used to assess the association of the affiliation status of clinicians within the 609 health systems with their 2019 final MIPS performance score and value-based reimbursement (both based on clinician performance in 2017), adjusting for clinician, patient, and practice area characteristics. EXPOSURES: Health system affiliation vs no affiliation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was final MIPS performance score (range, 0-100; higher scores intended to represent better performance). The secondary outcome was MIPS payment adjustment, including negative (penalty) payment adjustment, positive payment adjustment, and bonus payment adjustment. RESULTS: The final sample included 636 552 clinicians (41% female, 83% physicians, 50% in primary care, 17% in rural areas), including 48.6% who were affiliated with a health system. Compared with unaffiliated clinicians, system-affiliated clinicians were significantly more likely to be female (46% vs 37%), primary care physicians (36% vs 30%), and classified as safety net clinicians (12% vs 10%) and significantly less likely to be specialists (44% vs 55%) (P