Radiologist Medicare Reimbursement — Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Place
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) aspires to create payment models that incentivize value over volume of care to help reduce unsustainable expenditure growth while improving outcomes. Radiologists are primarily paid via a conventional fee-for-service model under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS). Changes in payments for services are constrained by budget neutrality, which requires that increases in Medicare payments in one area are balanced by decreases elsewhere. Programs such as Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) provide opportunities for monetary incentives to improve quality of care, which, in theory, could offset MPFS payment cuts.
Lauren P. Nicola, MD, FACR, Chief Executive Officer, Triad Radiology Associates and Chair, ACR Commission on Ultrasound, is an expert in healthcare economics and value-based payment models in Medicare. Dr. Nicola collaborated with the HPI on two recent studies that investigate various factors influencing Medicare physician reimbursement. She is actively trying to pave a path for radiologists to participate meaningfully in MIPS. She is also concerned about the sustainability of the MPFS for ensuring patient access to care given the statutory requirement for budget neutrality without any inflationary adjustment.
One study from the collaborative research with Dr. Nicola, published this April in the American Journal of Roentgenology, investigated radiologist performance in MIPS and determined it was heavily influenced by their practice type. The researchers looked at the top ten quality measures reported most frequently by radiologists in each practice type. The results were striking — for radiologists in a multispecialty practice that wasn’t mostly radiologists, not a single radiology-focused measure was among that list. The results determined that radiologists in radiology-focused practices scored significantly lower in MIPS compared with those in practices where other specialties comprised a larger share of physicians and predominantly reported nonradiology MIPS measures.
“Our results clearly show that radiologists are at a disadvantage in the MIPS program, with very few available measures, most of which are topped out — meaning that scoring well isn’t possible because average scores are too high,” said Dr. Nicola. “Our study sends a clear message: The MIPS program in its current design won’t move the needle on quality in radiology. For MIPS to work as intended, physicians must report measures relevant to their specialty, which will require more measures that are applicable to radiologists.”
The research showing that radiologists have little opportunity for incentives based on their own performance is particularly problematic given Medicare reimbursement trends. Another study published this April in INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, investigated the influence of budget neutrality on Medicare payments for medical specialties. The study found that Medicare reimbursement to physicians has declined over the last 16 years, with radiologists among the biggest losers. Reimbursement per Medicare beneficiary after inflation adjustment fell 2.3% for all physicians, despite a concurrent increase of 45.5% in physician services to each patient. Radiology ranked 31st in a list of 39 medical specialties, organized by increasing to decreasing payments, and showed a 25% decrease. Conversely, reimbursement rose 207% for nonphysician practitioners.
“On one hand, radiologists have increasing clinical workloads and are still being reimbursed less by payors year over year. On the other hand, there is no viable path in a radiology-focused practice to recoup lost reimbursement with quality-based bonuses in MIPS,” explains Nicola. “Thus, radiologists are caught between a rock and a hard place, which places patient access at risk. We are using this HPI research to advocate for change in current policy to ensure access to quality care.”