Latest posts by Lynn Scheps (see all)
- CMS Overpaid $729MM in MU Payments:What Does That Mean for You? - June 15, 2017
- Your First MACRA Decision: AAPM or MIPS? - March 14, 2017
- MIPS: The Maximum Positive Adjustment Ship Has NOT Sailed - January 17, 2017
As everyone is in the midst of anxiously trying to prepare for MACRA while awaiting the Final Rule, (due November 1), CMS announced yesterday that it is stepping back the requirements and the timetable to make it easier for providers to avoid the 2019 negative payment adjustments set out in the Proposed Rule. This decision comes in the wake of 4,000 comments and subsequent pressure from professional groups and from Congressmen/women pleading for relief from the rushed implementation of a complex and overly aggressive set of requirements that would negatively impact many practices, particularly small groups.
Andy Slavitt, Acting Administrator of CMS, published a blog that gave an overview of the new options that allow providers to “pick their pace” of complying. It appears that the only way a provider would receive a negative adjustment in 2019 would be if they do almost nothing in 2017. He outlined 4 options for participation:
- Do something! Avoid a negative payment adjustment in 2019 by submitting some data in 2017. This begs the question: what constitutes “some data?” Does this mean some data in each MIPS category, some data in one category, quality data only? (To me, the wording in Slavitt’s blog is reminiscent of CMS’ past MU shift to “capability enabled” or “met for 1 patient”.)
- Report for a short reporting period (“a reduced number of days”) could qualify you for a “small” positive payment adjustment.
- Comply with MIPS as defined in the Proposed Rule—or I assume, as it will be defined in the Final Rule— for the full calendar year and you could qualify for a “modest” positive payment adjustment.
- Participate in MACRA’s Advanced Alternate Payment Model option. CMS is hinting that it may broaden the definition of an APM.
This news will no doubt be greeted with relief and cheers by most providers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they are left feeling more uncertain now of what will be required in 2017 than they did before the announcement! What constitutes sufficient reporting in options 1 and 2 above? How many days are in a short reporting period—90 perhaps? How do the revised “small” and “modest” payment adjustments compare to the potential 4% proposed for 2017 and to each other? Will performance still be evaluated relative to other providers? And what happened to budget neutrality, i.e., where is this money coming from if hardly anyone will receive a negative adjustment?
Please let us know what you think of this latest MACRA news, and stay tuned as we learn more!