Differences in Orthopaedic Surgeon Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Performance, Demographics, and Patient Populations Based on Patient Social Risk.
Alejandro M Holle,Eugenia Lin,Vikram S Gill,Jack M Haglin,Henry D Clarke
{"title":"Differences in Orthopaedic Surgeon Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Performance, Demographics, and Patient Populations Based on Patient Social Risk.","authors":"Alejandro M Holle,Eugenia Lin,Vikram S Gill,Jack M Haglin,Henry D Clarke","doi":"10.2106/jbjs.24.01419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) has undergone numerous changes to promote care for patients at high social risk. However, the effect of these changes on surgeon MIPS performance and caseload selection remains unclear. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate how orthopaedic surgeon MIPS scores, demographics, practice characteristics, and patient populations varied on the basis of patient social risk in 2017 compared with 2021.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nCMS data were utilized to examine U.S. orthopaedic surgeons. Surgeons were placed into social-risk quintiles on the basis of the proportion of their patients who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, with the highest quintile representing the highest social risk. Demographics, practice location characteristics, patient data, and MIPS performance were assessed for the years 2017 and 2021. Differences between social-risk quintiles were assessed utilizing chi-square, Student t, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and multivariable logistic regression.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nIn 2017, surgeons with caseloads at the highest, compared with the lowest, social risk had lower MIPS performance scores (mean [and standard deviation], 66.0 ± 37.6 versus 70.1 ± 33.5; p < 0.001). However, in 2021, orthopaedic surgeons with caseloads at the highest, compared with the lowest, social risk had significantly higher MIPS performance scores (mean, 88.7 ± 16.9 versus 81.5 ± 18.3; p < 0.001). In terms of demographics, in 2021, orthopaedic surgeons with caseloads at the highest, compared with the lowest, social risk were more often women (9.2% versus 3.6%; p < 0.001), more often had a DO degree (11.2% versus 6.6%; p < 0.001), more recently graduated from medical school (mean, 23.0 ± 12.9 versus 25.7 ± 10.9 years; p < 0.001), and worked in areas with higher Distressed Communities Index (DCI) distress scores (mean, 56.9 ± 27.3 versus 35.1 ± 25.2; p < 0.001). Similar findings were present in 2017.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThe addition of the Complex Patient Bonus to the MIPS in 2020 may have reduced performance inequities in MIPS scoring for surgeons with caseloads at high social risk. However, the demographics and practice patterns of the orthopaedic surgeons caring for populations at the highest social risk remained consistent between years.\r\n\r\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\r\nPrognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.","PeriodicalId":22625,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.01419","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) has undergone numerous changes to promote care for patients at high social risk. However, the effect of these changes on surgeon MIPS performance and caseload selection remains unclear. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate how orthopaedic surgeon MIPS scores, demographics, practice characteristics, and patient populations varied on the basis of patient social risk in 2017 compared with 2021.
METHODS
CMS data were utilized to examine U.S. orthopaedic surgeons. Surgeons were placed into social-risk quintiles on the basis of the proportion of their patients who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, with the highest quintile representing the highest social risk. Demographics, practice location characteristics, patient data, and MIPS performance were assessed for the years 2017 and 2021. Differences between social-risk quintiles were assessed utilizing chi-square, Student t, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS
In 2017, surgeons with caseloads at the highest, compared with the lowest, social risk had lower MIPS performance scores (mean [and standard deviation], 66.0 ± 37.6 versus 70.1 ± 33.5; p < 0.001). However, in 2021, orthopaedic surgeons with caseloads at the highest, compared with the lowest, social risk had significantly higher MIPS performance scores (mean, 88.7 ± 16.9 versus 81.5 ± 18.3; p < 0.001). In terms of demographics, in 2021, orthopaedic surgeons with caseloads at the highest, compared with the lowest, social risk were more often women (9.2% versus 3.6%; p < 0.001), more often had a DO degree (11.2% versus 6.6%; p < 0.001), more recently graduated from medical school (mean, 23.0 ± 12.9 versus 25.7 ± 10.9 years; p < 0.001), and worked in areas with higher Distressed Communities Index (DCI) distress scores (mean, 56.9 ± 27.3 versus 35.1 ± 25.2; p < 0.001). Similar findings were present in 2017.
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of the Complex Patient Bonus to the MIPS in 2020 may have reduced performance inequities in MIPS scoring for surgeons with caseloads at high social risk. However, the demographics and practice patterns of the orthopaedic surgeons caring for populations at the highest social risk remained consistent between years.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.