{"title":"基于绩效的激励支付制度:纵向绩效和5年以上安全网提供者的不均衡奖励。","authors":"Meng-Yun Lin, Zhang Zhang, Kathleen Carey, Risha Gidwani, Amresh D Hanchate","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxaf105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), established by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to transition Medicare reimbursement toward value-based care, has faced criticism for its administrative complexity and potential inequities affecting safety-net providers (SNPs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study analyzed 5-year data (2018-2022) to evaluate the performance and financial outcomes of clinicians consistently participating in MIPS, focusing on disparities between SNPs and non-SNPs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that safety-net specialists were 31% more likely than non-safety-net specialists to consistently receive positive payment adjustments and earned modestly higher average adjustment rates (0.35% points). However, despite this superior performance, safety-net specialists did not achieve greater cumulative financial rewards due to MIPS's percentage-based adjustment structure, which disadvantages clinicians with smaller billing volumes. Our analysis also showed that MIPS financial incentives were generally modest-ranging from $300 to $4000 over 5 years-far below the estimated $12 000 in annual administrative compliance costs per physician reported in prior research.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To address these disparities and inefficiencies, policymakers should consider alternative models such as the American Medical Association's proposed Data-Driven Performance Payment System, which reduces administrative burden by simplifying the reporting process and ensures fairer financial rewards by uncoupling incentive payments from billing volume-thereby improving equity for safety-net clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"3 6","pages":"qxaf105"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12152720/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: longitudinal performance and uneven rewards for safety-net providers over 5 years.\",\"authors\":\"Meng-Yun Lin, Zhang Zhang, Kathleen Carey, Risha Gidwani, Amresh D Hanchate\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/haschl/qxaf105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), established by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to transition Medicare reimbursement toward value-based care, has faced criticism for its administrative complexity and potential inequities affecting safety-net providers (SNPs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study analyzed 5-year data (2018-2022) to evaluate the performance and financial outcomes of clinicians consistently participating in MIPS, focusing on disparities between SNPs and non-SNPs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that safety-net specialists were 31% more likely than non-safety-net specialists to consistently receive positive payment adjustments and earned modestly higher average adjustment rates (0.35% points). However, despite this superior performance, safety-net specialists did not achieve greater cumulative financial rewards due to MIPS's percentage-based adjustment structure, which disadvantages clinicians with smaller billing volumes. Our analysis also showed that MIPS financial incentives were generally modest-ranging from $300 to $4000 over 5 years-far below the estimated $12 000 in annual administrative compliance costs per physician reported in prior research.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To address these disparities and inefficiencies, policymakers should consider alternative models such as the American Medical Association's proposed Data-Driven Performance Payment System, which reduces administrative burden by simplifying the reporting process and ensures fairer financial rewards by uncoupling incentive payments from billing volume-thereby improving equity for safety-net clinicians.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health affairs scholar\",\"volume\":\"3 6\",\"pages\":\"qxaf105\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12152720/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health affairs scholar\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: longitudinal performance and uneven rewards for safety-net providers over 5 years.
Introduction: Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), established by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to transition Medicare reimbursement toward value-based care, has faced criticism for its administrative complexity and potential inequities affecting safety-net providers (SNPs).
Methods: This study analyzed 5-year data (2018-2022) to evaluate the performance and financial outcomes of clinicians consistently participating in MIPS, focusing on disparities between SNPs and non-SNPs.
Results: We found that safety-net specialists were 31% more likely than non-safety-net specialists to consistently receive positive payment adjustments and earned modestly higher average adjustment rates (0.35% points). However, despite this superior performance, safety-net specialists did not achieve greater cumulative financial rewards due to MIPS's percentage-based adjustment structure, which disadvantages clinicians with smaller billing volumes. Our analysis also showed that MIPS financial incentives were generally modest-ranging from $300 to $4000 over 5 years-far below the estimated $12 000 in annual administrative compliance costs per physician reported in prior research.
Conclusion: To address these disparities and inefficiencies, policymakers should consider alternative models such as the American Medical Association's proposed Data-Driven Performance Payment System, which reduces administrative burden by simplifying the reporting process and ensures fairer financial rewards by uncoupling incentive payments from billing volume-thereby improving equity for safety-net clinicians.