A National Snapshot of Social Determinants of Health Documentation in Emergency Departments.

INTRODUCTION: Documentation and measurement of social determinants of health (SDoH) are critical to clinical care and to healthcare delivery system reforms targeting health equity. The SDoH are codified in the International Classification of Disease 10th Rev (ICD-10) Z codes. However, Z codes are listed in only 1-2% of inpatient charts. Little is known about the frequency of Z code utilization specifically among emergency department (ED) patient populations nationally. METHODS: This was a repeated cross-sectional analysis of ED visit data in the United States from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample from 2016-2019. We characterized the use of Z codes and described associations between Z code use and patient- and hospital-level factors including the following: age; gender; race; insurance status; ED disposition; ED size; hospital urban-rural status; ownership; and clinical conditions. We calculated unadjusted odds ratios for likelihood of Z code reporting for each ED visit. RESULTS: Of approximately 140 million ED visits per year, 0.65% had an associated Z code in 2016, rising to 1.17% by 2019. Visits were more likely to have an associated Z code for adults age <65, male, Black, Medicaid or self-pay patients, and patients admitted to the hospital. Larger EDs, those in metropolitan areas, academic centers, and government-run hospitals were more likely to report Z codes. The most commonly associated clinical conditions were as follows: schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders; depressive disorder; and alcohol-related disorders. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of Z code documentation in the health records of ED patients, although use is uptrending. Further research is warranted to better understand the drivers of clinicians' use of Z codes and to improve on their utility.

The future of value-based emergency care: Development of an emergency medicine MIPS value pathway framework.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) to accelerate the transition of physician payment toward value-based care models and away from traditional fee-for-service payment programs. In recent years, CMS has sought to modify the program by developing a MIPS Value Pathway (MVP) framework intended to use existing and future physician quality and cost measures to reward value-based care delivery. This article describes the multi-step process of the MVP Task Force, convened by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) to develop an emergency medicine-specific MVP proposal informed by diverse stakeholder perceptions regarding: (1) which existing quality measures reflect high quality emergency care, and (2) the degree to which emergency clinicians can impact clinical outcomes and cost for the care domains captured by existing quality measures. The MVP Task Force synthesized stakeholder feedback and underwent a consensus-building approach to develop the "Adopting Best Practices and Promoting Patient Safety within Emergency Medicine" MVP, recently reviewed and approved by CMS for national implementation starting in 2023. Our process and findings have broad implications for clinicians, administrators, and policymakers navigating the continued transition to value-based care in conjunction with CMS's implementation of the MVP framework.

Emergency clinician participation and performance in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

BACKGROUND: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the largest national pay-for-performance program and the first to afford emergency clinicians unique financial incentives for quality measurement and improvement. With little known regarding its impact on emergency clinicians, we sought to describe participation in the MIPS and examine differences in performance scores and payment adjustments based on reporting affiliation and reporting strategy. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2018 Quality Payment Program (QPP) Experience Report data set. We categorized emergency clinicians by their reporting affiliation (individual, group, MIPS alternative payment model [APM]), MIPS performance scores, and Medicare Part B payment adjustments. We calculated performance scores for common quality measures contributing to the quality category score if reported through qualified clinical data registries (QCDRs) or claims-based reporting strategies. RESULTS: In 2018, a total of 59,828 emergency clinicians participated in the MIPS-1,246 (2.1%) reported as individuals, 43,404 (72.5%) reported as groups, and 15,178 (25.4%) reported within MIPS APMs. Clinicians reporting as individuals earned lower overall MIPS scores (median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 30.8 [15.0-48.2] points) than those reporting within groups (median [IQR] = 88.4 [49.3-100.0]) and MIPS APMs (median [IQR] = 100.0 [100.0-100.0]; p < 0.001) and more frequently incurred penalties with a negative payment adjustment. Emergency clinicians had higher measure scores if reporting QCDR or QPP non-emergency medicine specialty set measures. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency clinician participation in national value-based programs is common, with one in four participating through MIPS APMs. Those employing specific strategies such as QCDR and group reporting received the highest MIPS scores and payment adjustments, emphasizing the role that reporting strategy and affiliation play in the quality of care.

Financial Viability of Emergency Department Observation Unit Billing Models.

BACKGROUND: Outpatients receive observation services to determine the need for inpatient admission. These services are usually provided without the use of condition-specific protocols and in an unstructured manner, scattered throughout a hospital in areas typically designated for inpatient care. Emergency department observation units (EDOUs) use protocolized care to offer an efficient alternative with shorter lengths of stay, lower costs, and higher patient satisfaction. EDOU growth is limited by existing policy barriers that prevent a "two-service" model of separate professional billing for both emergency and observation services. The majority of EDOUs use the "one-service" model, where a single composite professional fee is billed for both emergency and observation services. The financial implications of these models are not well understood. METHODS: We created a Monte Carlo simulation by building a model that reflects current clinical practice in the United States and uses inputs gathered from the most recently available peer-reviewed literature, national survey, and payer data. Using this simulation, we modeled annual staffing costs and payments for professional services under two common models of care in an EDOU. We also modeled cash flows over a continuous range of daily EDOU patient encounters to illustrate the dynamic relationship between costs and revenue over various staffing levels. RESULTS: We estimate the mean (±SD) annual net cash flow to be a net loss of $315,382 (±$89,635) in the one-service model and a net profit of $37,569 (±$359,583) in the two-service model. The two-service model is financially sustainable at daily billable encounters above 20, while in the one-service model, costs exceed revenue regardless of encounter count. Physician cost per hour and daily patient encounters had the most significant impact on model estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In the one-service model, EDOU staffing costs exceed payments at all levels of patient encounters, making a hospital subsidy necessary to create a financially sustainable practice. Professional groups seeking to staff and bill for both emergency and observation services are seldom able to do so due to EDOU size limitations and the regulatory hurdles that require setting up a separate professional group for each service. Policymakers and health care leaders should encourage universal adoption of EDOUs by removing restrictions and allowing the two-service model to be the standard billing option. These findings may inform planning and policy regarding observation services.