• No results found

CY 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule July 23, 2015

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "CY 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule July 23, 2015"

Copied!
56
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

CY 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule

Proposed Rule

(2)

Housekeeping

Audio:

• You will hear the audio through your computer speakers. Please make sure your computer speakers are on and the

sound is turned up.

• If you still have no sound once the webinar starts, please click on the

audio broadcast icon ( ) located in the Participants Panel on the right

hand side of your screen.

 Please use the Q&A panel located on the right hand side of your screen to submit your questions throughout the webinar. Send to All Panelists.

If you experience any technical or audio issues during the webinar, please send a message through the Chat panel to AAMC Meetings.

(3)

Agenda

• The Big Picture

• Payment Policies

• Misvalued RVUs/RVU Targets/Conversion Factors • Advanced Care Planning Code

• Care Coordination/Collaboration Services • Other Proposals of Interest

• Quality and Efficiency Policies

• 2018 Value Modifier, PQRS • Physician Compare

• Feedback on MACRA Transition

• Alternative Payment models

• Feedback on CPCI Expansion

• MSSP ACO

(4)

2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule

Proposed Rule

• Displayed on July 7; published in Federal Register 7/15

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-15/pdf/2015-16875.pdf

• Supplemental materials (including RVU data)

http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/PFS-

Federal-Regulation-Notices-Items/CMS-1631-P.html?DLPage=1&DLEntries=10&DLSort=2&DLSortDir=descending

• Comments due September 8; Final rule expected November 1 – Draft comment letter distributed ~Aug 31

(5)

The Big Picture:

Payment

• SGR is repealed, but new RVU targets could still reduce

conversion factor (CF)

• Continuation of “misvalued RVU” initiatives and other

reviews of RVUs

• Major payment changes to gastroenterology and

radiation practice expenses

• New advanced care planning codes

(6)

The Big Picture:

Quality and Efficiency

• Policies for 2018 PQRS and Value Modifier (VM)

• LAST YEAR before transition to MIPS

• No increase to amount at risk for VM and PQRS for large group practices

• VM expands to certain non-physician practitioners; excludes certain CMMI programs

• New PQRS Group Option: Qualified Clinical Data Registries • CAHPS for PQRS only required for GPRO Web

• Feedback on MACRA implementation

• Physician Compare

• Benchmarks methodology– part of transition to 5-star rating system

• Feedback on Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative

Expansion

(7)

FPSC Will Be Offering Solutions To Help

Members Prepare for 2016

For All FPSC Participants

• November – Data-driven Impact Analysis Webinar on changes in the final Physician Fee Schedule

• December - Member-specific Medicare Impact Analyses based on changes in the final Physician Fee Schedule will be distributed

For FPSC Quality & Efficiency Module Participants

• July 28th Webinar on Strategic Implications of the PFS

• Fall 2015 – 2014 Academic QRUR Benchmarking Study

• November/December – Overview of Final 2016 PFS Implications on Quality & Efficiency

(8)

PAYMENT POLICIES

(9)

Payment Policies

• Estimate of RVU changes by specialty

• Conversion factor estimates/new targets for

RVU reductions

• New advanced care planning codes

• Discussion re primary care services

• Other items of interest

(10)

Path, Gastro, and RadOnc Have Largest RVU Changes

CMS’ Projected Impact on Allowable Charges by Specialty

Largest Expected Increases

• Independent Laboratory (+9%) • Pathology (+8%)

• Allergy/Immunology(+1%) • Dermatology (+1%)

• Diagnostic Testing Facility(+1%) • Hand Surgery(+1%)

• Interventional Pain Management (+1%)

• Interventional Radiology (+1%) • Plastic Surgery (+1%)

Largest Expected Decreases

• Gastroenterology (-5%)

• Radiation Therapy Centers (-9%)

• Radiation Oncology (-3%)

• Colon and Rectal Surgery (-1%)

• Neurosurgery (-1%)

Source: Table 45, 80 Fed. Reg. p.41939

*Estimated impact for all other specialties is 0% change

(11)

New Calculation: Targets for RVU Reductions

• Three years of targets to identify RVU adjustments that

produce reductions in PFS expenditures

– Targets

• 2016: 1.0% reduction; 2017: 0.5% reduction; 2018: 0.5% reduction

– Reductions will be measured via changes to RVUs

• Calculation

– If RVU reductions< target, then PFS reduced by difference

– If RVU reductions > target, then no adjustment to PFS, amount over target is applied to next year’s target

• Initial 2016 RVU reduction estimate is less than target

– Estimate=0.25%; target=1.0%; difference=0.75% – Estimate could change with interim final RVU values

(12)

Possible Impact to Conversion Factor

Current CF $35.9335 CMS Estimate 2016 CF $36.1096 $35.8387 $36.1096 Possible adjustments if 1% RVU reduction target is missed After Budget Neutrality Adjustments & 0.5% Update RVU Reductions = 0.25% RVU Reductions =1%

Worst Case CF Estimate

CF adjustment = 0.75% decrease

Best Case CF Estimate

No Adjustment

Actual RVU reduction likely to fall in between these two scenarios and will published in Final Rule in early November.

(13)

Advanced Care Planning

(ACP)

(14)

Advanced Care Planning Code (ACP)

Two new CPT codes proposed to be covered under

Medicare in 2016:

99497 (First 30 min in facility): $80.16

99498 (Each additional 30 min in facility): $75.11

• Explanation and discussion of advance directives (e.g. standard forms)

• Face to face with patient, family members, and/or surrogate • Can be billed with or without a standard E/M service

• 99498 should be listed separately from primary procedure • Must document service is reasonable and necessary

(15)

Primary Care and Care

Management Services

(16)

Care Management Services

• Two recent codes:

– Transitional Care Management (TCM), 99495-99496 in 2013 – Chronic Care Management (CCM), 99490, in 2015

• No new proposals for CY 2016!

• CMS seeks comments regarding improving existing

codes and creating new codes.

• CMS anticipates developing potential proposals to

address these issues through rulemaking in 2016 for

implementation in 2017.

(17)

Proposed OPPS Requirements for

Chronic Care Management Services

2015 MPFS CCM Requirements 2016 OPPS CCM Requirements

• Clinical staff portion must have an established relationship with the patient and provide care and treatment to the patient during the course of

illness.

• Proper documentation of informing patient and his/her authorization.

• Only one practitioner can furnish and be paid for providing CCM services during the calendar month

• Use of certified EHR technology

• Hospital must have an established relationship with the patient in one of two ways:

o patient is admitted as an inpatient or,

o is registered as an outpatient within last 12

months.

• Must document, in EMR, patient’s agreement to have services provided.

o Patient should be informed about 2 potential copayments

• Only one hospital can furnish and be paid for providing CCM services during the calendar month

(18)

Improving CCM and TCM Services

In order to better provide these services and alleviate

some of the extensive requirements—CMS seeks

comments on:

• Ways to improve beneficiary’s access to TCM and CCM

services

• Specific data on utilization of CCM codes to update

changes in payment and coding (e.g. clinical status of

beneficiaries, resource utilization and costs)

(Fed. Reg., p. 41708-41711)

(19)

Feedback to Improve Care

Coordination Services

(Fed. Reg., p. 41708-41711)

Time and

Intensity

Utilization of

Additional

Resources

Costs of

Additional

Resources

Overlap of

Cognitive

Resources

Factors to

Address

CMS seeks feedback on adding new codes to properly reflect all of the services and resources involved with furnishing comprehensive coordinated care management.

(20)

Collaborative Care

• Treating patients with multiple chronic conditions can

require extensive information sharing between a

primary care and a specialist

• In CY 2014, CPT created four codes

(99446-99449)

to

acknowledge telephone/internet consultative services

• Medicare does not pay for these services arguing

these consultations are already bundled in other

services

(already embedded in existing codes)

(21)

Establishing Separate Payment for

Collaborative Care

(Fed. Reg., p. 41708-41711)

Question: Should CMS bill a separate code to more accurately track

consultation services between primary care (or whoever is leading the care coordination) and specialists similar to CPT 99446-99449?

CMS seeks data regarding the following:

• Beneficiary’s specific conditions

• Parameters for providing these services and resources • Differentiating these services from existing ones

• Beneficiary protection

• Necessary technology to provide these services

(22)

Collaborative Care Models for

Behavioral Health Conditions

CMS seeks feedback regarding:

• Providing collaborative care for patients with common

behavior conditions

• Including PCP, care manager, and a psychiatric consultant

in the model

• How to code and reimburse this specific type of a model

(23)
(24)

Proposed Telehealth Service Codes

CMS Proposes to add 5 CPT and HCPCS Codes:

• 99356- prolonged service in inpatient or observation setting (1st hr)

• 99357– prolonged service in inpatient or observation setting (each additional 30 minutes)

• 90963– ESRD related services for home dialysis (<2yrs) • 90964 – ESRD related services for home dialysis (2-11yrs)

• 90965 – ESRD related services for home dialysis (12-19yrs)

CMS proposes to amend §410.78 to include CRNAs as practitioners for telehealth services.

List of Medicare codes and descriptors available at

(25)

Physician Self-Referral

• CMS does not propose any changes to the general exception

for academic medical centers

under 42 CFR §411.355(e)

• CMS proposes to:

– Update the regulations to accommodate new delivery and payment system reform models, to reduce burden, and to facilitate compliance

– Add two new exceptions: (1) Assistance to employ a nonphysician practitioner, and (2) Timeshare arrangements

• CMS seeks comments on a variety of issues, including

– Self-referral barriers to clinical and financial integration under reform models (such as ACOs, BPCI, APMs etc.), especially for the “volume or value” and “other business generated” criteria

(26)

Valuation of Global Services

MACRA provisions re Global Services

• Prohibited implementation of 0-Day surgical bundles as

described in PFS 2015 Final rule; CMS can review codes on case-by-case basis

• Authorizes Secretary to begin collecting information on

surgical services no later than January 2017

• Authority to withhold 5 percent of payments to physicians

selected for the sample until they report the requisite data

CMS seeking feedback on

• How to obtain auditable, objective data for post-op E/M visits

• Input on the accuracy of the values and description of

component services within the global package

(27)

Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Advance

Diagnostic Imaging Services

• Established by Protecting Access to Medicare Act of

2014

• Criteria for physicians to better identify the appropriate

imaging service;

– AUC will identify outlier ordering physicians for services after Jan 2017

– Outlier physicians need prior authorization starting 2020

• First part of implementation –

– Defining AUC development by provider-led organizations – CMS proposes requirements and process for becoming a

“provider-led” organization

(28)

Questions on Payment Proposals?

Please use the Q&A panel located on the right hand

side of your screen to submit your questions. Send

to All Panelists.

(29)

QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY

POLICIES

(30)

Quality & Efficiency Policies

• PQRS/VM Proposals

• Transition to MIPS

• Physician Compare

(31)
(32)

LAST YEAR for PQRS/Value Modifier

Adjustments

2018 payments based on 2016 activity

• 2% PQRS Penalty

• Up to 4% for Value Modifier (for large groups)

2019 payments based on either MIPS or APM

• Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS)

• Pay for performance based on quality, resource use, clinical practice improvements, and meaningful use

• Alternative payment models (APM)

• 5% lump sum bonus available

• EPs must meet certain thresholds; APMs must meet certain requirements

• NOTE: Participating in an MSSP ACO or other alternative payment

model does not automatically mean the practice will be in the APM track!!

(33)

Potential Incentives 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2021 2022

Mcare/Mcaid EHR Incentivea

Varies Varies Mcaid Only Mcaid Only Medicaid Only

--Value-Modifier (Max incentive)b

+1.0(x) +2.0(x) +4.0(x) +4.0(x) --

--MIPS -- -- -- -- TBD – Bonus for Exceptional Performance Same

Potential Reductions 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Medicare EHR Incentive -1.0% or-2.0%c -2.0% -3.0% -4.0%Up tod -- -- -- --PQRS -1.5% -2.0% -2.0% -2.0% -- -- -- --Value-modifier (Max reduction)b -1.0% -2.0% -4.0% -4.0% -- -- -- --MIPS -- -- -- -- -4.0% -5.0% -7.0% -9.0% Total Possible Reduction -4.5% -6% -9% -10% -4% -5% -7% -9%

a Medicare and Medicaid incentives and penalties vary by stage individual professional is at. For Medicare, eligible professionals (EPs)have to attest by 2014 to earn any

incentives. For Medicaid, EPs can earn their first incentive through 2016.

b Adjustment could be positive or negative. VM incentive is multiplied by an adjustment factor (x) TBD. There is an additional 1x for practices with high risk populations that

receive incentives. No maximum adjustment is defined in legislation.

c Penalty increases to 2% if EP is subject to 2014 eRx penalty and Medicare EHR Incentive.

(34)

Proposed PQRS Changes

• Reporting requirements similar to previous years

• New GPRO reporting option: Qualified Clinical Data

Registry (QCDR)

– QCDR have more flexibility in measure selection

• CAHPS for PQRS

– Optional for group registry/EHR (previously mandatory)

– Required for all GPRO Web (if applicable to practice)

• Proposed New Measures

– New options for cross-cutting measures – 1 new GPRO Web Measure

(35)

2016 PQRS Reporting Mechanisms

Reporting Mechanism

Group Indivi-dual

Requirements for 2015 PQRS Incentives Timing / Commitment Other Comments GPRO Web + CAHPS for PQRS X (revised)

Report all measures in the web interface for a sample of patients Group must report on at least 1 measure for which there is Medicare data

(Note: practices can report GPRO Web without CAHPS if CAHPS is not appropriate)

Annual submission

Available to groups with 25 or more EPs. All groups, regardless of size, must report CAHPS. Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) X (new)

X 9 measures/3 domains for 50% of applicable patients

Must report at least 2 outcome measures OR

at least 1 outcome measure+ 1 resource use, patient experience, efficiency/appropriate use, or patient safety measure

Registry submits data annually.

New reporting option for groups 2 or more in 2016.

Registry X

(revised)

X 9 measures/3 domains (unless fewer than 9 measures apply) for

50% of Medicare Part B Pts.

Report 1 cross-cutting measure if ≥ 1 face-to-face encounter Measures with 0% performance rate are not counted

Registry submits annually.

CAHPS for PQRS no longer required for GPRO registry reporting

EHR X

(revised)

X 9 measures/3 domains (unless fewer apply)

Must use appropriate EHR specifications.

At least 1 measure must include a Medicare patient;

Annual

submission EHR or thru EHR Data Vendor

CAHPS for PQRS no longer required for GPRO EHR reporting

EHR/Registry +

CAHPS for PQRS

X CAHPS for PQRS AND 6 measures/2 domains from

EHR/Registry (see additional requirements for EHR/Registry above)

Groups must use certified survey vendor.

CMS to identify patients to be surveyed. Annual submission.

Available to groups with 2 or more EPs that CHOOSE CAHPS reporting.

Claims X 9 measures/3 domains (unless fewer than 9 measures apply) for

50% of Medicare Part B Pts.

Report 1 cross-cutting measure if ≥ 1 face-to-face encounter Measures with 0% performance rate are not counted

Report

concurrently with claims

submission.

(36)

Proposed New Cross-Cutting Measures

• If group or individual EPs have at least one

face-to-face visit, then they must report at least 1

cross-cutting measure

• Proposed new cross-cutting measures

– Preventative Care Screening: Unhealthy Alcohol Use

– Breast Cancer Screening

– Falls: Risk Assessment

– Falls: Plan of Care

(37)
(38)

Major Proposals for Value Modifier (VM)

• Max penalty for large group remains 4 percent

• Changes to VM Eligibility

– Certain CMMI demonstrations excluded from 2018 VM because of waiver

– Adjust VM eligibility to prepare for MIPS

• Technical calculation changes

– Increase number of measures for MSPB to 100

– Calculate separate benchmarks electronic measures

(39)

Proposed 2018 Value Modifier

2015 PQRS Reporting • Group Reporting; • 50% of EPs in TIN; OR • Solo practitioner Quality Tiering Varies based on TIN Size

and Composition

NO

TINS with any professionals in selected CMMI

Demos are EXCLUDED from VM including:

Pioneer ACOs

Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative

Other identified models (could include Oncology, Next Gen ACOs, etc)

MSSP ACOs are still included in the VM

VM expands to certain non physicians practitioners:

YES

No PQRS Reporting

Automatic VM Penalty in 2018 (in addition to 2% PQRS Penalty) <10 EP TIN: -2.0%

10+ EP TIN: -4.0%

Groups without physicians and include NPs, PAs, CNSs, and CRNAs: -2%

(40)

Proposed Quality Tiering in 2018 VM

Low quality Avg quality High quality Low cost 0.0% +1.0x* +2.0x* Avg cost -1.0% +0.0% +1.0x* High cost -2.0% -1.0% 0.0%

TINs with 10 or more EPs

• Groups with 10 or more EPs have more at risk than smaller groups

• Practices with no physicians and NPs, PAs, CNSs, and CRNAs have no downside risk Low quality Avg quality High quality Low cost 0.0% +1.0x* +2.0x* Avg cost 0.0% 0.0% +1.0x* High cost 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Low quality Avg Quality High quality Low cost 0.0% +2.0x* +4.0x* Avg cost -2.0% +0.0% +2.0x* High cost -4.0% -2.0% 0.0%

TINs with <10 EPs

TINs with NP, PA, CNS, CRNA (and no physician)

(41)

MIPS1 VM PQRS EHR2

MD or DO X X X Both

Dentist3 X X X Both

Doctor of Podiatry X X X Mcare

Doctor of Optometry X X X Mcare

Chiropractor X X X Mcare

Nurse Practitioner X X4 X Mcaid

Physician Assistant X X4 X Mcaid5

CRNA X X4 X

Clinical Nurse Specialist X X4 X

Certified Nurse Midwife Perf Only4 X Mcaid

Others (audiologists, therapists, psychologists)

Perf Only4 X

1 – MIPS eligibility for 2019 and 2020. May expand to other professionals in 2021.

2 – Some EPs exempt from EHR Incentives. (Example – hospital based EPs are exempt from Meaningful Use.)

3 – Dentists are labeled as physicians in the Medicare program but may not be affected because they do not bill PFS services 4 – VM payments adjustments apply to physicians and proposed to apply to NPs, PAs, CRNAs in 2018. Other PQRS

professionals are included in performance, but not in payment adjustment.

(42)

Quality Measures

– PQRS reported measures – 3 claims-based outcome

measures

• Acute prevention quality indicators composite

• Chronic prevention quality indicators composite

• All cause readmission

– CAHPS for PQRS (included for

MSSP, optional for other groups)

Cost Measures

– Cost measures – not condition specific

• Total cost per capita

• Medicare Spending per Beneficiary

– Per capita costs for 4 condition populations

• COPD

• Heart Failure

• Coronary Artery Disease • Diabetes

2018 Value Modifier Measures

No New Measures for Value Modifier!

• Proposed changes to MSPB: Increase to Number of Admissions from 20 to 100 and include admissions from Maryland

(43)

VM and ACOs

• MSSP ACOs

– Rules to assign quality score if TIN/EPs are in more than one ACO (starting 2017 VM)

– CAHPS for PQRS included in the quality composite (starting 2018 VM)

• Pioneer ACOs and other models (starting in 2017)

– TIN waived if at least one EPs is in one of the identified CMMI models (Exception – VM still applies if the TIN is in an MSSP ACO)

(44)

Feedback on MACRA

(SGR Repeal)

(45)

Three Main Parts of the SGR Replacement

Predictable Updates Merit-Based Incentive

Payment System (MIPS)

Alternative Payment Models (APM) • Repeals SGR

• Replaces with small updates through 2020

• Freeze for six years • Two conversion factors after 2025 • Consolidates penalties from existing three Medicare reporting/ performance

programs into one large pay-for-performance program • Incentives to move to Alternative Payment Models • Bonus for 5 years • Higher update after 2025

(46)

Feedback on MACRA Provisions- MIPS

• CMS seeking feedback on MIPS definitions,

particularly low-volume threshold, clinical

practice improvement activities

• How to define low volume threshold

– EPs with low volume can be exempt from MIPS

• Min number of Medicare beneficiaries • Min number of items and services • Min amount of allowed charges

– Should CMS use thresholds like what is in MU?

• Possible Example: EP does not have at least 10% of their patient volume derived from Part B encounters

(47)

Feedback on MACRA Provisions- MIPS

• How to define Clinical Practice Improvement

Activities

– Seeking feedback on activities that could be classified as practice improvement

– Categories mentioned in legislation: • expanded practice access,

• population management, • care coordination,

• beneficiary engagement,

• patient safety/practice assessment, • participation in APM

– Legislation mentioned maximum credit for certified PCMH

(48)

Feedback on MACRA Provisions- APM

• Upcoming Request for Information (RFI), but CMS

welcomes initial feedback

• Topics covered include:

– Criteria for assessing physician-focused payment models

– Criteria and process for submission of physician-focused payment models eligible APM

– Qualifying APM participants

– Medicare payment threshold option and combination all-payer and Medicare payment threshold option

– Time period used to calculation eligibility for APM – Definition of nominal financial risk

(49)
(50)

Physician

Compare

Key proposals:

• Proposed benchmarking algorithm

• New data on Physician Compare Website

– New indicators for VM upward adjustment, reporting on the cardiovascular prevention measures group,

– All PQRS measures including CAHPS and QCDRs

• New data in Downloadable data file

– Add utilization data

– Value modifier quality tier and payment adjustment

• Feedback for future rulemaking:

– Should CMS stratify measures by race, ethnicity, gender, other ideas? – Add Medicare Advantage information?

– Add VM cost and quality scores? – Add Open Payments data?

(51)

Physician Compare: Benchmarking

• Propose using Achievable Benchmarking for Care (ABC

tm

)

– For each measure - rank order physicians/group by highest performance

– Go through list until 10 percent of the beneficiaries (not providers) in denominator are selected

– Calculate benchmark as the score for all patients in the

denominator

– Adjustments for low denominators

• Benchmark calculated every year; no discussion about

different benchmarks for different data sources

• ABC methodology “can be used to systematically assign stars

for … 5-star rating”

(52)

Questions on Q&E Proposals?

Please use the Q&A panel located on the right hand

side of your screen to submit your questions. Send

to All Panelists.

(53)

ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT

MODELS

(54)

Potential CPCI Expansion

• Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative (CPCI) basics

– CMMI model; Ends December 2016

– Collaborating with commercial payers and Medicaid – Practices:

• Receive per beneficiary per month payment for each Medicare (and sometimes Medicaid) beneficiary

• Has to provide comprehensive services in five different

primary care areas

• Has to report 9 or 13 electronic quality measures at practice site level

• Seeking feedback on issues around potential future

expansion

(55)

MSSP ACO Changes

• Proposed change to attribution methodology

– Exclude nursing home visits from skilled nursing

home

– Would affect 2017 performance year

– No corresponding change proposed for VM attribution

• One new quality measure for GPRO Web

Interface

(56)

Questions/Feedback

Questions about PFS Proposals

Mary Wheatley,

mwheatley@aamc.org

Tanvi Mehta,

tmehta@aamc.org

FPSC Projects Related to PFS

Dave Troland,

troland@uhc.edu

Will Dardani,

dardani@uhc.edu

FPSC Projects Q&E Projects

Shaifali Ray,

ray@uhc.edu

References

Related documents

Beginning with the 2017 payment adjustment period, CMS proposes to apply the Value Modifier to physicians and non-physician EPs in groups with two or more EPs and to physicians

Combines Quality &amp; Value Programs • Physician Quality Reporting System • Value Based Payment Modifier • Meaningful Use MIPS MU VBPM PQRS... Establish Composite Performance

Physician Quality Reporting Program (PQRS) Value-Based Payment Modifier Medicare Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

Satisfaction is the level of a person’s felt state resulting from comparing a product’s perceived performance in relation to the person’s expectation’s satisfaction level is

To cite this article: Mike Zapp (2020): The authority of science and the legitimacy of international organisations: OECD, UNESCO and World Bank in global education governance,

CMS proposes this qualified registry reporting option only for those EPs who are beyond their first year of demonstrating meaningful use. CMS notes, however, that this may not

• Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) includes consolidated aspects of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), the Value- Based Payment Modifier (VM), and the Medicare

We have presented a generic methodology for controlling the surface roughness of nonlinear SPDEs exemplified by the sKS equation with either the Burgers nonlinearity or the