WASHINGTON — A panel of Medicare advisers warned agency officials against moving forward with a proposal to make public a list of doctors participating in a voluntary federal quality reporting effort.
The Physician Quality Reporting Initiative, created under a provision of 2006 tax relief, offers physicians a 1.5% Medicare bonus for sending data on several quality measures to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. So far, about 16% of Medicare participating physicians have elected to participate in PQRI; about half of those who are not participating see fewer than 50 Medicare patients a year, according to agency officials.
“We have had in place for a number of years public reporting of quality information and now cost information for a number of settings, hospitals most prominently, dialysis facilities, nursing homes, and home health agencies,” Dr. Barry Straube, CMS chief medical officer, said at a meeting of the Practicing Physicians Advisory Council. “The agency, the [Health and Human Services] department, the White House, [lawmakers], and many consumer advocates and employers would like for us and everyone to start focusing more on physician office public reporting.”
Dr. Straube announced at the meeting that CMS was considering whether to publish the names of physicians who have agreed to participate in the PQRI as well as to indicate whether those physicians were paid the incentive, a proxy for whether they met or exceeded the agency's reporting requirements.
That proposal didn't sit well with several PPAC members.
“I'm concerned that you are taking these PQRI data that were presented to the physician community for one reason and now you're taking that information garnered out of that and you're going to put it on a Web site,” said Dr. Tye Ouzounian, an orthopedic surgeon in Tarzana, Calif.
Publishing the names of PQRI participants could create a public perception that physicians who are not on the list are not quality providers, he told Dr. Straube.
The perception might be even worse for those physicians who chose to participate, but were not able to fully comply, said Dr. Fredrica Smith, an internist in Los Alamos, N.M.
“It's not that they are not listed as having participated. They are listed as participating and failing, which has horrible implications,” Dr. Smith said. A solo practitioner, she said she spent 1–2 hours a week trying to comply with the reporting requirements, only to be left confused by them.
CMS officials told the council that they were applying the reporting requirements flexibly and that they expected most physicians who chose to participate to receive the incentive payment.
Despite such assurances, PPAC recommended that CMS give physicians and their colleagues enough lead time to consider whether they want to participate in the initiative, knowing their participation will be published, before that information is made available to the public.
“If you are going to put [those] data up there, you need to advise the physician community, with ample notice,” Dr. Ouzounian said.
Dr. Straube said he understood council members' concerns, but that it was inevitable, given the push for transparency, that such information will some day be made public.
“I suspect that this is going to happen sometime in the future. I don't see how the physician office setting will not have some need to be publicly accountable,” he said.