Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...
Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ... Notice: This CMS-approved document has been submitted - Philips ...
CMS-1403-FC Comment: We received one comment requesting eligible professionals with only 1 or 2 measures to be able to report via registries. Response: We did not propose to allow registry reporting of 1 or 2 measures if less than 3 measures apply. Analytically it would be difficult to implement in that if an eligible professional submits fewer than 3 measures via registries we would not know whether the eligible professional did so because only 2 measures applied or because the registry only accepts data for 2 of the provider’s measures and he or she is reporting their third measure via claims. The amount of cross-checking via different submission options that would be necessary makes it impractical to implement the commenter’s suggestion. Comment: A few comments were received regarding the process for correcting data that was sent in via registries that is incorrect. Response: We highly discourage eligible professionals from changing data once it is submitted to CMS from the registry. Allowing data to be resubmitted for one or more professionals would not only be time-consuming and delay reports and payment, but it could also result in duplicating or erroneously leaving out some professionals’ 570
CMS-1403-FC quality measures results and/or numerator and denominator data on quality measures. Comment: Two commenters requested that we specify what constituted an acceptable validation strategy for registries. Response: As a result of the MMSEA, which was enacted in December, 2007, and modified the PQRI, we implemented registry-based submission for the 2008 PQRI. Thus, for 2008, we required registry vendors to supply CMS with their validation strategy that would detail how the registry would ensure that the data the registry reported to CMS was accurate. We found that there are several variations for this process that registries use. We do not believe we have enough experience with registries to specify a single validation strategy that all should employ and we believe we are benefited from allowing a variety of such techniques to be employed based on our approval at this point. Therefore, for the 2009 PQRI, registry vendors will again be required to supply us with their validation strategy that details how the registry would ensure that the data the registry reports to us is accurate. In addition, we note that registries are required to sign an attestation statement to CMS vouching for the accuracy of the data that 571
- Page 519 and 520: CMS-1403-FC provisions will not app
- Page 521 and 522: CMS-1403-FC (Pub. L. 110-173) (MMSE
- Page 523 and 524: CMS-1403-FC reporting data on quali
- Page 525 and 526: CMS-1403-FC PQRI and a more detaile
- Page 527 and 528: CMS-1403-FC and our responses to th
- Page 529 and 530: CMS-1403-FC provisions of the Priva
- Page 531 and 532: CMS-1403-FC reducing eligible profe
- Page 533 and 534: CMS-1403-FC administrative or judic
- Page 535 and 536: CMS-1403-FC professionals who did n
- Page 537 and 538: CMS-1403-FC base the incentive paym
- Page 539 and 540: CMS-1403-FC A few commenters noted
- Page 541 and 542: CMS-1403-FC administrative burden t
- Page 543 and 544: CMS-1403-FC requested that more det
- Page 545 and 546: CMS-1403-FC incentive payments for
- Page 547 and 548: CMS-1403-FC December 31, 2009 and J
- Page 549 and 550: CMS-1403-FC the reporting period fo
- Page 551 and 552: CMS-1403-FC proposed to carry forwa
- Page 553 and 554: CMS-1403-FC measures group is appli
- Page 555 and 556: CMS-1403-FC measures results and nu
- Page 557 and 558: CMS-1403-FC (Delmarva Foundation fo
- Page 559 and 560: CMS-1403-FC registries to report on
- Page 561 and 562: CMS-1403-FC reporting options for r
- Page 563 and 564: CMS-1403-FC incentive payment for P
- Page 565 and 566: CMS-1403-FC to report 2009 PQRI qua
- Page 567 and 568: CMS-1403-FC Comment: We received nu
- Page 569: CMS-1403-FC Comment: One comment su
- Page 573 and 574: CMS-1403-FC requirements listed on
- Page 575 and 576: CMS-1403-FC a data submission vendo
- Page 577 and 578: CMS-1403-FC As we stated in the CY
- Page 579 and 580: CMS-1403-FC whether eligible profes
- Page 581 and 582: CMS-1403-FC ● Agree that the regi
- Page 583 and 584: CMS-1403-FC soon thereafter as is t
- Page 585 and 586: CMS-1403-FC Comment: We received ma
- Page 587 and 588: CMS-1403-FC Comment: One commenter
- Page 589 and 590: CMS-1403-FC additional 2.0 percent
- Page 591 and 592: CMS-1403-FC EHRs in 2009. The measu
- Page 593 and 594: CMS-1403-FC i. Overview and Summary
- Page 595 and 596: CMS-1403-FC voluntary consensus sta
- Page 597 and 598: CMS-1403-FC Comment: Several commen
- Page 599 and 600: CMS-1403-FC the AMA-PCPI should be
- Page 601 and 602: CMS-1403-FC are appropriate and do
- Page 603 and 604: CMS-1403-FC to make any changes to
- Page 605 and 606: CMS-1403-FC post the measures for p
- Page 607 and 608: CMS-1403-FC beneficiaries. We now h
- Page 609 and 610: CMS-1403-FC identified in Tables 15
- Page 611 and 612: CMS-1403-FC important difference in
- Page 613 and 614: CMS-1403-FC not use Measures #73 Ca
- Page 615 and 616: CMS-1403-FC measures, but which are
- Page 617 and 618: CMS-1403-FC with comment period. Ho
- Page 619 and 620: CMS-1403-FC ● Measure #41 Osteopo
<strong>CMS</strong>-1403-FC<br />
quality measures results and/or numerator and denominator<br />
data on quality measures.<br />
Comment: Two commenters requested that we specify what<br />
constituted an acceptable validation strategy for<br />
registries.<br />
Response: As a result of the MMSEA, which was enacted<br />
in December, 2007, and modified the PQRI, we implemented<br />
registry-based submission for the 2008 PQRI. Thus, for<br />
2008, we required registry vendors to supply <strong>CMS</strong> with their<br />
validation strategy that would detail how the registry<br />
would ensure that the data the registry reported to <strong>CMS</strong> was<br />
accurate. We found that there are several variations for<br />
this process that registries use. We do not believe we<br />
have enough experience with registries to specify a single<br />
validation strategy that all should employ and we believe<br />
we are benefited from allowing a variety of such techniques<br />
to be employed based on our approval at this point.<br />
Therefore, for the 2009 PQRI, registry vendors will again<br />
be required to supply us with their validation strategy<br />
that details how the registry would ensure that the data<br />
the registry reports to us is accurate. In addition, we<br />
note that registries are required to sign an attestation<br />
statement to <strong>CMS</strong> vouching for the accuracy of the data that<br />
571