CMS has launched a new program designed to shift more risk to and offer more rewards to primary care practices which explicitly requires HIT vendors to be involved at advanced stages. While the federal government has obvious done a great deal to promote the use of HIT in medical practices, this is the first I’ve seen where HHS has demanded vendors get involved directly, and I find it intriguing. But let me explain.
The new Comprehensive Primary Care Plus payment scheme – which builds upon an existing model – is designed to keep pushing risk onto primary care practices. CMS expects to get up to 5,000 practices on board over the next five years, spanning more than 20,000 clinicians serving 25 million Medicare beneficiaries.
Like Medicare payment reforms focused on hospitals, CPC+ is designed to shift risk to PCPs in stages. Track 1 of the program is designed to help the practices shift into care management mode, offering an average care management fee of $15 per beneficiary per month on top of fee-for-service payments. Track 2, meanwhile, requires practices to bear some risk, offering them a special hybrid payment which mixes fee-for-service and a percentage of expected Evaluation & Management reimbursement up front. Both tracks offer a performance-based incentive, but risk-bearing practices get more.
So why I am I bothering telling you this? I mention this payment model because of an interesting requirement CMS has laid upon Track 2, the risk-bearing track. On this track, practices have to get their HIT vendor(s) to write a letter outlining the vendors’ willingness to support them with advanced health IT capabilities.
This is a new tack for CMS, as far as I know. True, writing a letter on behalf of customers is certainly less challenging for vendors than getting a certification for their technology, so it’s not going to create shockwaves. Still, it does suggest that CMS is thinking in new ways, and that’s always worth noticing.
True, it doesn’t appear that vendors will be required to swear mighty oaths promising that they’ll support any specific features or objectives. As with the recently-announced Interoperability Pledge, it seems like more form than substance.
Nonetheless, my take is that HIT vendors should take this requirement seriously. First of all, it shines a spotlight on the extent to which the vendors are offering real, practical support for clinicians, and while CMS may not be measuring this just yet, they may do so in the future.
What’s more, when vendors put such a letter together in collaboration with practices, it brings both sides to the table. It gives vendors and PCPs at least a marginally stronger incentive to discuss what they need to accomplish. Ideally – as CMS doubtless hopes – it could lay a foundation for better alignment between clinicians and HIT leaders.
Again, I’m not suggesting this is a massive news item, but it’s certainly food for thought. Asking HIT vendors to stick their necks out in this way (at least symbolically) could ultimately be a catalyst for change.