Maybe you’ve reported PQRS in the past and are already preparing to make the transition to MIPS this year. Or, maybe this year is the first time your practice plans to report. Either way, your method of reporting can help determine whether or not you achieve your quality and revenue goals, and the benefits and drawbacks of different methods must be weighed in relation to the unique needs of your practice. To give you a place to start, this post compares and contrasts some considerations related to two common submission mechanisms: EHR and Qualified MIPS Registry reporting.
At its most basic, an EHR acts as a digital record of a patient’s medical information. Some have much broader functionality, and many are implemented with a targeted subset of functions based on the needs and goals of the practices using them. EHRs can be used to store and report quality measure data, or else can be integrated with a registry that performs this function. (Our MIPSPRO registry, for example, is equipped to handle bulk uploads and direct API connections from EHR Systems.)
A qualified registry is a CMS-certified entity that submits Quality Payment Program (QPP) data to CMS as a batch end-of-year submission, on behalf of eligible clinicians. While some EHRs and registries may overlap functionally, registries typically include more robust performance analytics than EHRs as they are designed specifically for interpreting MIPS measure data. Some registries are also supplemented by educational resources and support teams that can help you figure out how best to navigate confusing submission rules, and how to use the data you already have to maximize your quality improvement and MIPS payment adjustment.
Each year a list of qualified registries is posted by CMS. This document includes notes on the various services offered by each registry, as well as on the measures and categories they support, services offered, and costs incurred by clients.
The 2014 CMS PQRS experience report shows that for individual participants, incentive eligibility rates were highest among those using registry measures groups, at 93%. Registries and EHRs had more similar success rates for individual measures, averaging 59% and 57% respectively. (Our success rate at Healthmonix is an unparalleled 99.8%!)
Reporting using an EHR may benefit some providers for reasons of cost or of avoiding the frustrations of implementing and learning a new system, but if you choose this path, you or someone on your staff may need to invest more time in understanding the nuances of submission requirements, or else you could be in danger of failing to report successfully. For example, eligible professionals (EPs) and hospitals are required to demonstrate meaningful use (MU) of their EHR through attestation to qualify for an incentive payment, and CMS will likely be especially vigilant after a recent audit uncovered over $700 million in improper incentive payments to EPs who did not meet these requirements.
Now that quality measures will be assessed against benchmarks and peers, meeting quality standards and cutting costs are increasingly important. The MIPS payment adjustment will also continue to increase along with the percentage of patients you will be required to report on. Therefore, choosing the best reporting method for your practice is an ever more important first step toward reporting efficiency and ultimately reporting success.
Want more information? Schedule a free appointment to talk with a member of our quality reporting team.