2021 Quality Payment Program Proposed Rule Overview Fact

Sheet
• Future Direction of the Quality Payment Program
• Quality Payment Program Proposals
o Participation Pathways
o Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) CY 2021 Proposal Highlights
o Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM) CY 2021 Proposal Highlights
• Medicare Shared Savings Program Proposals
• How to Comment on the CY 2021 Proposed Rule
• QPP Contact Information
• Comparison Tables: CY 2020 Final / CY 2021 Proposed
o MIPS Proposed Policies
o Advanced APM Proposed Policies
o Physician Compare Proposed Policies
• Appendix: APP Core Quality Measure Set

Future Direction of the Quality Payment Program

As clinicians across the country continue to respond to the 2019 Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, we recognize that
the most important priority right now is ensuring patients are getting the care they need. We want to support this focus by
limiting the number of significant changes to the Quality Payment Program in 2021, continuing a gradual implementation
timeline for the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Value Pathways (MVPs), and introducing the Alternative
Payment Model (APM) Performance Pathway (APP).

1
We had previously finalized that participation through MIPS Value Pathways would begin with the 2021 performance
period. However, we recognize stakeholder concerns about this timeline, even more so now that clinicians are working
hard to address the spread of COVID-19 within their practices and communities. Therefore, we will not be introducing any
MVPs into the program for the 2021 performance period. Instead we are proposing additions to the framework’s guiding
principles and development criteria to support stakeholder engagement in co-developing MVPs and establishing a clear
path for MVP candidates to be recommended through future rulemaking.
Additionally, as we continue to make strides towards facilitating transition of clinicians from MIPS to APMs, we are
proposing a new APM Performance Pathway (APP) reporting option in 2021 to align with the MVP framework. As part of
the APP introduction, we will also be sunsetting the CMS Web Interface as a collection type beginning in the 2021
performance period. This change will significantly reduce the number of measures required to be reported by Accountable
Care Organizations (ACOs) participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program as well as groups and virtual groups that
report through the CMS Web Interface as they transition to other collection types that offer greater choice. We believe
working towards a future state of the program that is more aligned through these participation pathways will achieve our
goal of moving away from siloed performance category activities and measures and moving towards sets of measurement
options that are more relevant to a clinician’s scope of practice and that are meaningful to patient care.

Quality Payment Program Proposals CY 2021 Overview

In light of the national public health emergency triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, we limited our policy proposals to
focus on the highest priorities for the program. In order to help us progress further towards the future state of MIPS, we
have made some additional strides in furthering the MVP framework by proposing updates to the MVP guiding principles
and additional guidance and structure that stakeholders should consider when collaborating with us on MVP creation. In
addition, for the 2021 performance period, we have proposed some needed updates to both the MIPS and Advanced
APM tracks to continue reducing burden, respond to feedback that we have heard from clinicians and stakeholders, and
align with statutory requirements.

2
(Note: This section provides a highlight of our proposals on the topics below. For more details, refer to the comparison
table beginning on page 12.)
• Participation Pathways
o MIPS Value Pathways
o APM Performance Pathway
• MIPS Program Proposals
o Participation Options
o Performance Threshold and Performance Category Weights
o Performance Categories
o Scoring (COVID-19 Flexibilities for PY 2020)
o Physician Compare
• Advanced APM Program Proposals

Participation Pathways
MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs)
In the CY 2020 PFS Final Rule, we had finalized a set of guiding principles to help us define what MVPs would look like
as we implement them in future years. A majority of stakeholders have supported the implementation of a set of guiding
principles but provided comments on ways we could further refine the principles. Based on stakeholder comments
provided through the RFI, we have proposed updates to further refine the guiding principles of MVPs to include the patient
voice, subgroup reporting, and a fifth principle related to promoting digital performance measure data submission. In
addition, we have also heard from stakeholders the need for criteria for stakeholders to follow as they work to develop
MVP candidates. Therefore, we have also proposed a set of criteria to be considered when creating MVP candidates. We
refer readers to the table below for additional details.

APM Performance Pathway (APP)

We have also proposed a new APM Performance Pathway (APP) in 2021. This new Pathway would be complementary to
MVPs. The APP would be available only to participants in MIPS APMs and may be reported by the individual eligible
clinician, group (TIN), or APM Entity.

3
The APP, like an MVP, would be composed of a fixed set of measures for each performance category. In the APP, the Cost
performance category would be weighted at 0%, as all MIPS APM participants already are responsible for cost containment
under their respective APMs. The Improvement Activities performance category score would automatically be assigned
based on the requirements of the MIPS APM in which the MIPS eligible clinician participates; in 2021, all APM participants
reporting through the APP will earn a score of 100%. The Promoting Interoperability performance category would be
reported and scored at the individual or group level, as is required for the rest of MIPS.
The Quality performance category will be composed of six measures that are specifically focused on population health and
that we believe to be widely available to all MIPS APM participants. Therefore, participants in various MIPS APMs should be
able to work together to easily report on a single set of quality measures each year that represent a true cross-section of
their participants’ performance.
One useful note about the APP is that quality measures reported through the APP automatically will be used for purposes of
Medicare Shared Savings Program quality scoring, thus satisfying reporting requirements for both programs. We believe this
approach would reduce burden and enhance further alignment across APMs. (Please refer to the Appendix for a list of the
core Quality measures in the APP.)

MIPS Program Updates

Participation Options
We are continuing to allow MIPS eligible clinicians to participate in MIPS as individuals or as part of a group or virtual
group, and we are expanding the use of the APM Entity submitter type to allow the use of all MIPS submission
mechanisms.
In past years, MIPS eligible clinicians participating in MIPS APMs were required to participate in MIPS through their APM
Entity for scoring under the APM Scoring Standard. We are proposing to end the APM Scoring Standard beginning with
the 2021 performance period. Additionally, we are proposing to add the APM Entity as a submitter type which may report
to MIPS on behalf of associated MIPS eligible clinicians. The APM Entity would be defined by the Participation List or
Affiliated Practitioner list of the applicable MIPS APM. The APM Entity would be able to report on the Quality and
Improvement Activities performance categories. Quality measures could be selected and reported in the same manner
and using the same options that are available to all other MIPS eligible clinicians, or could be reported through the APP.

4
We note that the Cost category would also be scored for APM Entities that do not report through the APP. When an APM
Entity chooses to report to MIPS, we would generally calculate a Promoting Interoperability performance category score
for the APM Entity group.

Performance Threshold and Performance Category Weights

We propose to continue to incrementally adjust the performance threshold and performance category weights to meet the
requirements established by the statute. Beginning with the sixth year of the program (2022 performance period), the
performance threshold needs to be set at the mean or median of the final scores for all MIPS eligible clinicians for a prior
period, and the Quality and Cost performance categories must be equally weighted at 30% each.
We are proposing the following performance threshold and category weights for the 2021 performance period (which
equates to the 2023 payment year):
• The performance threshold to be 50 points
• The Quality performance category to be weighted at 40% (5% decrease from PY 2020)
• The Cost performance category to be weighted at 20% (5% increase from PY 2020)
• The Promoting Interoperability performance category to be weighted at 25% (no change from PY 2020)
• The Improvement Activities performance category to be weighted at 15% (no change from PY 2020)
In the CY 2020 PFS Final Rule, we had finalized a performance threshold of 60 points for the 2021 performance period
but are proposing and soliciting comment on a lower performance threshold of 50 points.
By law, the Cost and Quality performance categories must be equally weighted at 30% beginning in the 2022
performance period.

5
Performance Category Proposals
For the Quality performance category, we are proposing to:
• Use performance period, not historical, benchmarks to score quality measures for the 2021 performance period.
We are concerned we may not have a representative sample of historic data for CY 2019 because of the national
public health emergency for COVID-19 (which impacted data submission in 2020), which could skew
benchmarking results.
• Update the scoring policy for topped-out measures, so that the 7 measure achievement point cap will be applied
only if the measure is identified as topped out based on the established benchmarks for both the 2020 and 2021
performance periods, given that we are proposing to use performance period, not historical, benchmarks for the
2021 performance period;
• Address substantive changes to 112 existing MIPS quality measures, removing 14 quality measures from the
MIPS program, and proposing a total of 206 quality measures starting in the 2021 performance year, including two
new administrative claims-based measures, one of which has a 3-year measurement period;
• Revise scoring flexibility for measures with specification or coding changes during the performance year; and
• End the CMS Web Interface as a quality reporting option for ACOs and registered groups, virtual groups, or other
APM Entities beginning with the 2021 performance period.
We recognize that our proposal to end the CMS Web Interface would be a big change for groups and virtual groups using
the CMS Web Interface measures, especially those that have reported through this collection type for the first 3 years of the
program and through a similar reporting mechanism in our legacy programs. However, we believe that the transition to using
an alternative collection type for the 2021 performance period would reduce reporting requirements for these groups and
virtual groups. Groups and virtual groups would be able to:
• Select their own quality measures instead of reporting on a pre-determined set of measures established under the
CMS Web Interface.
o The ability to select measures more meaningful to their scope of practice, including specialty specific
measures, would better prepare them for implementation of MVPs.

6
 • Report fewer measures (6 as opposed to 10) with the ability to report on all-payer data.
• Have the option to report the eCQM or MIPS CQM version of the same primary care measures previously reported
through the CMS Web Interface.
o There are 10 eCQMs and 9 MIPS CQMs that are the same as the previously reported CMS Web Interface
measures.
There is a separate proposal that would require ACOs participating in the Shared Savings Program to report their quality
measures through the APM Performance Pathway (APP). The quality measures reported through the APP would also
count for the MIPS Quality performance category for the MIPS eligible clinicians participating in these ACOs.
For the Cost performance category, we are proposing to:
• Update existing measure specifications to include telehealth services that are directly applicable to existing episode-
based cost measures and the TPCC measure.
For the Improvement Activities performance category, we are proposing to:
• Make minimal updates to the Improvement Activities Inventory;
• Establish policies in relation to the Annual Call for Activities including an exception to the nomination period
timeframe during a public health emergency (PHE) and a new criterion for nominating new improvement activities;
and
• Establish a process for agency-nominated improvement activities.
For the Promoting Interoperability performance category, we are proposing to:
• Retain the Query of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) measure as an optional measure and propose
to make it worth 10 bonus points;
• Change the name of the Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information by
replacing “incorporating” with “reconciling”; and

7
 • Add an optional Health Information Exchange (HIE) bi-directional exchange measure.
We are also focused on improving partnerships with third party intermediaries to help reduce clinician reporting burden
and improve the services clinicians receive.
For third party intermediaries, such as Qualified Clinical Data Registries (QCDRs) and Qualified Registries, we are:
• Proposing to allow QCDRs, Qualified Registries, and Health IT vendors to support:
o MVPs beginning with the 2022 performance period
o The APM Performance Pathway (APP) beginning with the 2021 performance period
• Proposing to establish specific data validation requirements for QCDRs and Qualified Registries, and seeking
comment on whether Health IT Vendors and CAHPS survey vendors should perform similar data validation.
• Proposing that the following additional factors will be considered when determining whether to approve a third
party intermediary for future participation in the MIPS program:
o The entity’s compliance with the requirements of this section for any prior MIPS performance period for
which it was approved as a third party intermediary.
o Whether the entity provided inaccurate information to the clinicians regarding Quality Payment Program
requirements.
• Updating the standards for QCDR measures (details in the table below):
o Modifications to the QCDR measure testing requirement
o QCDR measures must be fully tested at the clinician level in order to be considered for inclusion in an MVP.
o Modifications to the QCDR measure data collection requirement
Lastly, we are proposing to require additional information be submitted to CMS as part of the corrective action plans under
the remedial action and termination policies applicable to all third party intermediaries.

Scoring Proposals (COVID-19 Flexibilities for PY 2020)

We are proposing to change the maximum number of points available for the complex patient bonus to account for the
additional complexity of treating patients during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. As proposed, clinicians, groups,

8
virtual groups, and APM Entities could now earn up to 10 bonus points towards their final score for the 2020 performance
year. We are proposing this increase for the 2020 performance period only.
We are also proposing to allow APM Entities to submit an application to reweight MIPS performance categories as a result
of extreme and uncontrollable circumstances, such as the public health emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
This policy would apply beginning with the 2020 performance period.

Physician Compare
Finally, to more completely and accurately reference the website for which CMS will post information available for public
reporting we propose to define Physician Compare to mean the Physician Compare Internet Web site of the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services (or a successor Web site).

Advanced APMs
We are proposing that in calculating QP Threshold Scores used in making Qualifying APM Participant (QP)
determinations, beginning in the 2021 QP Performance Period, Medicare patients who have been prospectively attributed
to an APM Entity during a QP Performance Period will not be included as attribution-eligible Medicare patients for any
APM Entity that is participating in an Advanced APM that does not allow for attribution of Medicare patients that have
already been prospective attributed to other APM Entities.
The effect of this proposed policy would be to remove such prospectively attributed Medicare patients from the
denominators when calculating QP Threshold Scores for APM Entities or individual eligible clinicians in Advanced APMs
that do not allow for attribution of Medicare patients that have already been prospectively attributed elsewhere, thereby
preventing dilution of the QP Threshold Score for the APM Entity or individual eligible clinician in an Advanced APM that
uses retrospective alignment.
We are also proposing a targeted review process through which an eligible clinician or APM Entity may request review of
a QP or Partial QP determination if they believe in good faith that, due to a CMS clerical error, an eligible clinician was
omitted from a Participation List used for purposes of QP determinations.

9
Medicare Shared Savings Program
For performance year 2021, we are proposing that Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) participating in the Shared
Savings Program would be required to report quality measure data for purposes of the Shared Savings Program via the
APP, instead of the CMS Web Interface. Under this new approach, ACOs would only need to report one set of quality
metrics that would meet requirements under both MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program. The total number of
measures in the ACO quality measure set would be reduced from 23 to 6 measures, and the number on which ACOs are
required to actively report would be reduced from 10 to 3. In addition, we are considering adding a “Days at Home”
measure that is currently under development, to the APP core measure set in future years. (Please refer to the Appendix
for a list of the core Quality measures in the APP.)
The redesign also raises the quality performance standard for ACOs under the Shared Savings Program. ACOs would
now be required to receive a Quality performance score equivalent to or above the 40th percentile across all MIPS Quality
performance category scores in order to share in savings or avoid owing maximum losses. Currently, ACOs have to
completely and accurately report all measures and achieve at or above the 30th percentile on one measure in each
domain to be eligible to share in savings. Under the proposed redesign, if the quality performance standard is met, the
ACO would receive the maximum sharing rate. If the quality performance standard is not met, the ACO would not be
eligible to share in any earned savings. For ACOs that owe shared losses, the losses would be scaled using the MIPS
Quality performance category score under Track 2 and the ENHANCED track; and under the BASIC track and the Track
1+ ACO Model, we would continue to apply a fixed 30% loss sharing rate.
In conjunction with our proposed changes to the quality performance standard, we are proposing to strengthen our Shared
Savings Program policies regarding compliance with the quality performance standard by broadening the conditions under
which CMS may terminate an ACO’s participation agreement when an ACO demonstrates a pattern of failure to meet the
quality performance standard.
For performance year 2020, all ACOs are considered to be affected by the Public Health Emergency (PHE) for the COVID-
19 pandemic, and the Shared Savings Program extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policy applies. In addition, for
performance year 2020 only, we are proposing to waive the requirement for ACOs to field a Consumer Assessment of
Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) for ACOs survey. Consequently, ACOs would receive automatic full credit for
the patient experience of care measures. We are also seeking comment on an alternative scoring methodology approach
under the extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policy.

10
We Want to Hear from You
We welcome your feedback on the proposed policies for the 2021 performance period of the Quality Payment Program.
Please note that the official method for commenting is outlined below.

How Do I Comment on the CY 2021 Proposed Rule?

The proposed rule includes directions for submitting comments. Comments must be received within the 60-day
comment period, which closes on October 5, 2020. When commenting refer to file code: CMS-1734-P
FAX transmissions won’t be accepted. Use one of the following ways to officially submit your comments:
• Electronically through Regulations.gov
• Regular mail
• Express or overnight mail
The proposed rule can be accessed through the “Regulatory Resources” section of the QPP Resource Library.
Contact Us
We will continue to provide support to clinicians who need assistance. While our support offerings will reflect our efforts to
streamline and simplify the Quality Payment Program, we understand that clinicians will still need assistance in order to
help them successfully participate. We will continue offering direct, customized technical assistance to clinicians in small
practices through our Small, Underserved, and Rural Support initiative.
We also encourage clinicians to contact the Quality Payment Program at 1-866-288-8292, Monday through Friday, 8:00
a.m.-8:00 p.m. Eastern Time or by email at [email protected]. Customers who are hearing impaired can dial 711 to be
connected to a TRS Communications Assistant. You can also visit the Quality Payment Program website for educational
resources, information, and upcoming webinars.

11
 Changes to QPP Policies Proposed in the CY 2021 NPRM
Quality Payment Program CY 2021 NPRM: MIPS Overview
Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
Participation Pathways
MIPS Value MVP Implementation Timeline: MVP Implementation Timeline:
Pathways MVPs will be a participation framework beginning with MVPs must be established through rulemaking and we are not
(MVPs) the 2021 performance period. proposing any MVP candidates for comment in this NPRM. As a
result, MVPs will not be available for MIPS reporting until the 2022
performance period, or later.

MVP Guiding Principles: Proposed Revisions to MVP Guiding Principles (Italics will
1. MVPs should consist of limited sets of measures indicate updates):
and activities that are meaningful to clinicians, 1. MVPs should consist of limited, connected, complementary sets
which will reduce or eliminate clinician burden, of measures and activities that are meaningful to clinicians,
related to selection of measures and activities, which will reduce clinician burden, align scoring, and lead to
simplify scoring, and lead to sufficient comparative sufficient comparative data.
data. 2. MVPs should include measures and activities that would result
2. MVPs should include measures and activities that in providing comparative performance data that is valuable to
would result in providing comparative performance patients and caregivers in evaluating clinician performance and
data that is valuable to patients and caregivers in making choices about their care; MVPs will enhance this
evaluating clinician performance and making comparative performance data as they allow subgroup reporting
choices about their care; that comprehensively reflects the services provided by
3. MVPs should include measures to encourage multispecialty groups.
performance improvements in high priority areas. 3. MVPs should include measures selected using the Meaningful
Measures approach and, wherever possible, the patient voice

12
Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
4. MVPs should reduce barriers to APM participation must be included, to encourage performance improvements in
by including measures that are part of APMs where high priority areas.
feasible, and by linking cost and quality 4. MVPs should reduce barriers to APM participation by including
measurement. measures that are part of APMs where feasible, and by linking
cost and quality measurement. (No change)
5. MVPs should support the transition to digital quality measures.

Proposed New MVP Development Criteria:

• Utilize measures and activities across all four performance
categories, if feasible (Quality, Cost, Improvement Activities, and
Promoting Interoperability)
• Have a clearly defined intent of measurement
• Align with the Meaningful Measure Framework
• Have measure and activity linkages within the MVP
• Be clinically appropriate
• Be developed collaboratively across specialties in instances
where the MVP is relevant to multiple specialties
• Be comprehensive and understandable by clinicians, groups,
and patients
• To the extent feasible, include electronically specified quality
measures
• Incorporates the patient voice
• Ensures quality measures align with existing MIPS quality
measure criteria, and considers the following: Whether the
quality measures are applicable and available to the clinicians
and groups, collection types measures are available through
• Beginning with the 2022 performance period, may include
QCDR measures that have been fully tested

13
Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
• Ensures that the cost measure is related to the other measures
and activities included in the MVP, and if a relevant cost
measure for specific types of care are not available, includes a
broadly applicable cost measure that is applicable to the clinician
type, and considers what additional cost measures should be
prioritized for future development and inclusion in the MVP
• Includes improvement activities that can improve the quality of
performance in clinical practice, that complement and/or
supplement the quality action of the measures in the MVP, and
uses broadly applicable improvement activities when specialty or
sub-specialty improvement activities are not available
• Must include the entire set of Promoting Interoperability
measures
• Includes the administrative-claims based measure, Hospital-
Wide, 30-day, All-Cause Unplanned Readmission (HWR) Rate
for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Program (MIPS)
Eligible Clinician Groups
Proposed Process for Candidate MVP collaboration,
solicitation, and evaluation:
• We would hold a public facing MVP development webinar to
review MVP development criteria, timelines, and process in which
to submit a candidate MVP
• Stakeholders would formally submit their MVP candidates using a
standardized template (to be published in the QPP Resource
Library)

14
 Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
• We would review and evaluate MVP candidates as they are
received (asking follow up questions as needed), against the
aforementioned described criteria.
• We would also vet the quality, QCDR, and cost measures from a
technical perspective to validate the coding and inclusion of
clinician types intended to be measured.
• When an MVP candidate is identified as feasible for the upcoming
performance periods, we would schedule meetings with the
stakeholder collaborators to discuss our feedback and next steps.
• Because MVPs must be established through rulemaking, CMS
will not communicate to the stakeholder whether an MVP
candidate has been approved, disapproved, or is being
considered for a future year, prior to the publication of the
proposed rule.
APM • This new Pathway is a complementary Pathway to the MVPs.
Performance • The APP would be available only to participants in MIPS APMs
Pathway and would be required for Medicare Shared Savings Program
quality determinations for ACOs. It may be reported by the
individual eligible clinician, group TIN, or APM Entity.
• The APP, like an MVP, would be comprised of a fixed set of
measures for each performance category.
• In the APP, the Cost performance category would be weighted
at 0%, as all MIPS APM participants are already responsible for
cost containment under their APMs.
• The Improvement Activity performance category score would
automatically be assigned based on the Improvement Activity
requirements of the MIPS APM in which the MIPS eligible

15
 Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
clinician participates. All APM participants reporting the APP
would earn a score of 100% for the 2021 performance period.
• The Promoting Interoperability performance category would be
reported and scored as required for the rest of MIPS.
• The Quality performance category would be comprised of 6
measures designed specifically focused on population health
and believed to be widely available to all MIPS APM participants.
Therefore, participants in various MIPS APMs should be able to
work together to easily report on a single set of quality measures
each year that represent a true cross-section of their
participants’ performance.
• Quality measures reported through the APP would automatically
be used for purposes of quality performance scoring under the
Shared Savings Program.

MIPS Participation Options

MIPS MIPS eligible clinicians may participate in MIPS as: We are proposing that all MIPS eligible clinicians, including those
Participation • An individual clinician in a MIPS APM, may choose to participate in MIPS as:
and Reporting • A group • An individual
• A virtual group • A group
• A virtual group
Exception: Eligible clinicians in a MIPS APM are
required to participate in MIPS through their APM • An APM Entity
Entity under the APM Scoring Standard. We are also proposing to end the APM Scoring Standard
(reporting requirements and scoring approach for APM
participants) beginning with the 2021 performance period.

16
 Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
MIPS Performance Categories
Performance No change from CY 2019: We are proposing the following performance category weights for
Category • Quality: 45% the 2021 performance period:
Weights • Cost: 15% • Quality: 40%
• Promoting Interoperability: 25% • Cost: 20%
• Improvement Activities: 15% • Promoting Interoperability: 25% (no change)
• Improvement Activities: 15% (no change)
Note that these weights do not apply to the APM Performance
Pathway.
Quality Available Collection Types for Groups and Virtual Available Collection Types for Groups and Virtual Groups
Performance Groups • Electronic Clinical Quality Measures (eCQMs)
Category • CMS Web Interface Measures • Medicare Part B Claims Measures
Collection • Electronic Clinical Quality Measures (eCQMs) • MIPS Clinical Quality Measures (MIPS CQMs)
Types • Medicare Part B Claims Measures • QCDR Measures
• MIPS Clinical Quality Measures (MIPS CQMs)
We are proposing to remove the CMS Web Interface as a
• QCDR Measures collection type and submission type for groups and virtual groups
beginning with the 2021 performance period.
Quality We are proposing a total of 206 quality measures for the 2021
Measures performance period which reflect proposals on:
• Substantive changes to 112 existing MIPS quality measures;
• Changes to specialty sets;
• Removal of measures from specific specialty sets;
• Removal of 14 quality measures; and
• 2 new administrative claims outcome quality measures.

17
 Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
The 2 proposed administrative claims measures are:
1. Hospital-Wide, 30-Day, All-Cause Unplanned Readmission
(HWR) Rate for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment
Program (MIPS) Eligible Clinician Groups
a. 200 case minimum
b. 1-year measurement period
c. Only applies to groups and virtual groups with 16 or
more clinicians and that meet the case minimum
2. Risk-standardized complication rate (RSCR) following
elective primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and/or total
knee arthroplasty (TKA) for Merit-based Incentive Payment
System (MIPS) Eligible Clinicians
a. 25 case minimum
b. 3-year measurement period
c. Applies to individual clinicians, groups and virtual
groups that meet the case minimum
Quality Whenever possible, we use historical data (from 2 Proposed Quality Measure Benchmarks:
Measure years prior) to establish quality measure benchmarks. We intend to use performance period benchmarks for the CY 2021
Benchmarks MIPS performance period, using the data submitted during the CY
A historical benchmark is created when at least 20
2021 performance period rather than baseline period historic data.
clinicians, groups or virtual groups reported the
measure in the baseline period and met the criteria for We are concerned we may not have a representative sample of
contributing to the benchmark. historic data for CY 2019 because of the national public health
emergency for COVID-19 (which impacted data submission in
When a historical benchmark cannot be created, we
2020), which could skew benchmarking results.
will attempt to create a benchmark using data
submitted for the performance period.

18
 Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
Topped Out When the published historical benchmarks identify a Tied to our proposal above, we propose to apply a cap of 7
Measures measure as topped out for 2 or more consecutive achievement points, for the 2021 performance period and beyond,
years, the measure can earn a maximum of 7 to measures that are identified as topped out for 2 or more
achievement points beginning in the second consecutive years including the 2021 MIPS performance period
consecutive year the measure is identified as topped benchmarks.
out.
Scoring We established scoring flexibility for quality measures We are proposing to increase our previously established scoring
Flexibilities with significant changes during the performance flexibility by:
period. • Expanding the list of reasons that a quality measure may be
• For measures with significant ICD-10 coding impacted during the performance period, and
changes, we truncated the performance period to • Revising when we would allow scoring of the measure with a
the first 9 months of the calendar year. (ICD-10 performance period truncation (to 9 months) or the complete
changes are effective 10/1 each year.) suppression of the measure if 9 months of data are not
• For measures with significant changes to clinical available.
practice guidelines, we suppressed the measure
Potential changes that may impact quality measures during the
from scoring (0 achievement points and total
performance period include updates to clinical guidelines or
measure achievement points reduced by 10).
measure specifications, such as revisions to medication lists,
codes and clinical actions.
Based on the timing of the change and the availability of data, we
would
• Truncate the performance period to 9 consecutive months if
there were no concerns with potential patient harm and 9
consecutive months of data were available; or
• Suppress the measure from scoring (0 achievement points and
total measure achievement points reduced by 10 for each
measure submitted that is impacted) if 9 consecutive months of
data were not available.

19
 Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
Our intent is to establish an approach that allows us to score a
quality measure even when there has been a change to the
measure outside of the clinician’s control during the performance
period.
Third Party Data Submission Data Submission Proposals
Intermediaries • For the 2020 performance period, QCDRs, Qualified • No proposals to change the performance category data
Registries, and Health IT vendors may support data submission requirements finalized in the CY 2020 PFS Final
submission for the Quality, Improvement Activities, Rule.
and Promoting Interoperability performance • For the 2021 performance period, QCDRs, Qualified Registries,
categories. and Health IT Vendors may support data submission for the
• For the 2021 performance period, QCDRs and APM Performance Pathway (APP).
Qualified Registries must support data submission • For the 2022 performance period, QCDRs, Qualified Registries,
for the Quality, Improvement Activities, and and Health IT vendors may support data submission for MVPs.
Promoting Interoperability performance categories.
Health IT vendors must be able to submit data for at
least one of the aforementioned performance
categories.
Data Validation Data Validation Proposals
• QCDRs and qualified registries conduct data • We are proposing that QCDRs and qualified registries would
validation audits on an annual basis; conduct data validation audits, with specific obligations, on an
• QCDRs and qualified registries would conduct a annual basis.
detailed audit if errors are identified during the • We are proposing that QCDRs and qualified registries would
randomized audit. also conduct a targeted audit if errors are identified during the
data validation audit.

20
Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
• We are seeking comment on whether we should require Health
IT Vendors and CAHPS vendors to perform similar data
validation.
Third Party Intermediary Approval Criteria Third Party Intermediary Approval Criteria Proposal
• We are proposing the following additional factors for
• A third party intermediary's principle place of
business and retention of any data must be based in consideration when determining whether to approve a third
the U.S. party intermediary for future participation in the MIPS program:
• If the data is derived from CEHRT, a QCDR, o The entity’s compliance with the requirements of this section
qualified registry, or health IT vendor must be able for any prior MIPS performance period for which it was
to indicate its data source. approved as a third party intermediary
• All data must be submitted in the form and manner
specified by CMS. o Whether the entity provided inaccurate information to the
clinicians regarding Quality Payment Program requirements
• If the clinician chooses to opt-in in accordance with
§414.1310, the third party intermediary must be able
to transmit that decision to CMS.
• The third party intermediary must provide services
throughout the entire performance period and
applicable data submission period.
• Prior to discontinuing services to any MIPS eligible
clinician, group, or virtual group during a
performance period, the third party intermediary
must support the transition of such MIPS eligible
clinician, group, or virtual group to an alternate third
party intermediary, submitter type, or, for any
measure on which data has been collected,

21
Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
collection type according to a CMS approved a
transition plan.
Third Party Intermediary Remedial Action and Third Party Intermediary Remedial Action and Termination
Termination Proposal
• Proposing additional policy on what information would be required
• If CMS determines that a third party intermediary in a corrective action plan (CAP):
has ceased to meet one or more of the applicable
• The CAP must detail the issues that contributed to the non-
criteria for approval, has submitted a false
compliance.
certification under paragraph (a)(5) of this section,
or has submitted data that are inaccurate, unusable, • The CAP must detail the impact to individual clinicians, groups,
or otherwise compromised, CMS may take one or or virtual groups, regardless of whether they are participating in
more of the following remedial actions after the program because they are MIPS eligible, voluntary
providing written notice to the third party participating, or opting in to participating in the MIPS program.
intermediary: o The CAP must detail the corrective actions implemented by
• Require the third party intermediary to submit a the third party intermediary to ensure that the non-
corrective action plan (CAP) to CMS to address the compliance issues have been resolved and will not reoccur
identified deficiencies or data issue, including the in the future.
actions it will take to prevent the deficiencies or data o The CAP must include a detailed timeline for achieving
issues from recurring. The CAP must be submitted compliance with the applicable requirements.
to CMS by a date specified by CMS.
• Publicly disclose the entity's data error rate on the
CMS website until the data error rate falls below
3%.
• CMS may immediately or with advance notice
terminate the ability of a third party intermediary to
submit MIPS data on behalf of a MIPS eligible
clinician, group, or virtual group for one or more of

22
Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
the following reasons: CMS has grounds to impose
remedial action;
• CMS has not received a CAP within the specified
time period or the CAP is not accepted by CMS; or
• The third party intermediary fails to correct the
deficiencies or data errors by the date specified by
CMS
QCDR Measure Requirements: QCDR Measure Requirements:
Beginning with the 2020 performance period: Beginning with the 2022 performance period:
• In instances in which multiple, similar QCDR • QCDR measures must be fully tested at the clinician level in
measures exist that warrant approval, we may order to be considered for inclusion in an MVP.
provisionally approve the individual QCDR
We also finalized policies in the Medicare and Medicaid Interim
measures for 1 year with the condition that QCDRs
Final Rule with Comment (IFC) published 5/8/2020 (CMS-5531
address certain areas of duplication with other
IFC) which delayed QCDR measure requirements:
approved QCDR measures in order to be
• Delaying the QCDR measure testing requirement until the 2022
considered for the program in subsequent years.
performance period in light of the pandemic and modifying the
Duplicative QCDR measures will not be approved if
QCDR measure testing requirement to be two-step process that
QCDRs do not elect to harmonize identified
first requires face validity testing and eventually full measure
measures as requested by CMS within the allotted
testing (beta testing).
timeframe.
• Delaying the QCDR measure data collection requirement until
Beginning with the 2021 performance period: the 2022 performance period in light of the pandemic. QCDRs
• QCDRs must identify a linkage between their QCDR are required to collect data on a QCDR measure, appropriate to
measures to the following, at the time of self- the measure type, prior to submitting the QCDR measure for
nomination: (a) cost measure; (b) Improvement CMS consideration during the self-nomination period.
Activity; or (c) CMS developed MVPs as feasible.
• QCDR Measures must be fully developed with
completed testing results at the clinician level and

23
Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
must be ready for implementation at the time of self-
nomination.
• QCDRs must collect data on a QCDR measure,
appropriate to the measure type, prior to submitting
the QCDR measure for CMS consideration during
the self-nomination period.
• CMS may consider the extent to which a QCDR
measure is available to MIPS eligible clinicians
reporting through QCDRs other than the QCDR
measure owner for purposes of MIPS. If CMS
determines that a QCDR measure is not available to
MIPS eligible clinicians, groups, and virtual groups
reporting through other QCDRs, CMS may not
approve the measure.
• A QCDR measure that does not meet case
minimum and reporting volumes required for
benchmarking after being in the program for 2
consecutive CY performance may not continue to
be approved in the future.
• At CMS discretion, QCDR measures may be
approved for two years, contingent on additional
factors.
• Additional QCDR measures considerations include:
(a) conducting an environmental scan of existing
QCDR measures; MIPS quality measures; quality
measures retired from the legacy Physician Quality
Reporting System (PQRS) program; and (b)
utilized the CMS Quality Measure Development

24
 Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
Plan Annual Report and the Blueprint for the CMS
Measures Management System to identify
measurement gaps prior to measure development.

Improvement Improvement Activities Inventory: Improvement Activities Inventory:

Activities • Addition of 2 new Improvement Activities. • Modification of 2 existing Improvement Activities.
Performance • Modification of 7 existing Improvement Activities.
Category • Removal of 15 existing Improvement Activities.

Criteria for nominating a new improvement Criteria for nominating a new improvement activity:
activity: We are proposing to establish 1 new criterion to the criteria for
• Relevance to an existing improvement activities nominating new improvement activities beginning with the CY 2021
subcategory (or a proposed new subcategory); performance period and future years:
• Importance of an activity toward achieving improved • Include activities which can be linked to existing and related
beneficiary health outcomes; MIPS quality and cost measures, as applicable and feasible.
• Importance of an activity that could lead to
improvement in practice to reduce health care
disparities;
• Aligned with patient-centered medical homes;
• Focus on meaningful actions from the person and
family’s point of view;
• Support the patient’s family or personal caregiver;
• Representative of activities that multiple individual
MIPS eligible clinicians or groups could perform (for
example, primary care, specialty care);
• Feasible to implement, recognizing importance in
minimizing burden, especially for small practices,

25
 Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
practices in rural areas, or in areas designated as
geographic HPSAs by HRSA;
• Evidence supports that an activity has a high
probability of contributing to improved beneficiary
health outcomes;
• Include a public health emergency as determined by
the Secretary; or
• CMS is able to validate the activity.
Pathway for nominating a new improvement Pathways for nominating a new improvement activity:
activity: We are proposing to allow nomination of Improvement Activities in
A stakeholder may nominate a new activity or request addition to the Annual Call for Activities in two circumstances:
a modification to an existing improvement activity by 1. An exception to the nomination period timeframe during a
submitting a nomination form available at public health emergency (PHE); and
www.qpp.cms.gov during the Annual Call for Activities. 2. A process for agency-nominated improvement activities.
Promoting Objectives and Measures: Objectives and Measures:
Interoperability Beginning with the 2019 performance period: We are proposing to:
Performance • The optional Query of PDMP measure will require • Retain the Query of PDMP measure as an optional
Category a yes/no response instead of a measure and propose to make it worth 10 bonus points
numerator/denominator. • Change the name of the Support Electronic Referral Loops
• We will redistribute the points for the Support by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information by
Electronic Referral Loops by Sending Health replacing “incorporating” with “reconciling”
Information measure to the Provide Patients • Add an optional Health Information Exchange (HIE) bi-
Electronic Access to Their Health Information directional exchange measure
measure if an exclusion is claimed.
Beginning with the 2020 performance period:
• We will remove the Verify Opioid Treatment
Agreement Measure.

26
 Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
Reweighting:
We are proposing to continue our automatic reweighting policies
related to the following clinician types for 2021:
• Nurse Practitioners (NPs);
• Physician Assistants (PAs);
• Certified Registered Nurse Anesthesiologists (CRNAs);
• Clinical Nurse Specialists (CNSs);
• Physical Therapists;
• Occupational Therapists;
• Qualified Speech-language Pathologist;
• Qualified Audiologists;
• Clinical Psychologists; and
• Registered Dieticians or Nutrition Professionals.
Cost Measures: Measures (previously established):
Performance • TPCC measure (Revised) • TPCC measure
Category • MSPB-C (MSPB Clinician) measure (Name and • MSPB Clinician measure (no change from CY2020)
specification Revised) • 18 existing episode-based cost measures
• 8 existing episode-based measures
Updates to measures:
• 10 new episode-based measures:
• Adding telehealth services directly applicable to existing
1. Acute Kidney Injury Requiring New Inpatient
episode-based cost measures and TPCC measure.
Dialysis
• Updated specifications available for review on the MACRA
2. Elective Primary Hip Arthroplasty
feedback page (https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-
3. Femoral or Inguinal Hernia Repair
Payment-Program/Quality-Payment-Program/Give-Feedback)
4. Hemodialysis Access Creation
5. Inpatient Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease (COPD) Exacerbation

27
 Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
6. Lower Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage (applies to
groups only)
7. Lumbar Spine Fusion for Degenerative
Disease, 1-3 Levels
8. Lumpectomy Partial Mastectomy, Simple
Mastectomy
9. Non-Emergent Coronary Artery Bypass Graft
(CABG)
10. Renal or Ureteral Stone Surgical Treatment
No changes to case minimums
Complex Existing policy: For the 2020 performance period only:
Patient Bonus Clinicians, groups, virtual groups and APM Entities are We are proposing to double the complex patient bonus for the
able to earn up to 5 bonus points to account for the 2020 performance period only. Clinicians, groups, virtual groups
complexity of their patient population and APM Entities would be able to earn up to 10 bonus points
(instead of 5 bonus points) to account for the additional complexity
of treating their patient population due to COVID-19.
Extreme and Individual clinicians, groups and virtual groups can No change to policy for individual clinicians, groups and virtual
Uncontrollable submit an application to reweight 1 or more MIPS groups.
Circumstances performance categories due to extreme and
Beginning with the 2020 performance period:
Reweighting uncontrollable circumstances, outside the clinician’s
• We are proposing to allow APM Entities to submit an application
Application control; for example, circumstances that:
to request reweighting of all MIPS performance categories.
• Prevent them collecting data for a sustained period
• If the application were approved, the APM Entity group would
of time, or
receive a score equal to the performance threshold even if data
• Could impact performance on cost measures
is submitted (note this is different than our policy for individuals,
Data submission would override approved reweighting groups and virtual groups).
on a category-by-category basis.

28
 Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed
Performance For the 2020 performance period (2022 payment For the 2021 performance period (2023 payment year):
Threshold / year): • We proposed to set the Performance Threshold at 50 points.
Additional • Performance Threshold is set at 45 points.
We did not propose any changes to the additional performance
Performance • Additional performance threshold is set at 85 points threshold of 85 points for exceptional performance.
Threshold / for exceptional performance.
Payment • As required by statute, the maximum negative
Adjustment payment adjustment is -9%.
• Positive payment adjustments can be up to 9% (not
including additional positive adjustments for
exceptional performance) but are multiplied by a
scaling factor to achieve budget neutrality, which
could result in an adjustment above or below 9%.
For the 2021 performance period:
• Performance Threshold is set at 60 points.
• Additional performance threshold is set at 85 points
for exceptional performance.
Application of When a clinician has multiple final scores associated We are proposing to change this hierarchy beginning with the 2021
Final Score to with a single TIN/NPI combination, we will use the performance period/2023 payment year:
Payment following hierarchy to assign the final score that will be • Virtual group final score
Adjustment used to determine the 2022 MIPS payment adjustment • Highest available final score from APM Entity, APP, group,
applicable to that TIN/NPI combination: and/or individual participation
• APM Entity final score (highest of these if more than
one)
• Virtual group final score
• Group or individual score (whichever is higher)

29
 Quality Payment Program CY 2021 NPRM: Advanced APM Overview

Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed

Advanced Threshold Scores used for QP determinations We are proposing that in calculating Threshold Scores used in
APMs: QP calculated using the patient count method are making Qualifying APM Participant (QP) determinations, beginning
Threshold calculated as a ratio of attributed Medicare patients to in the 2021 QP Performance Period, Medicare patients who have
Scores whom the APM Entity or eligible clinician furnishes been prospectively attributed to an APM Entity during a QP
Medicare Part B covered professional services and Performance Period will not be included as attribution-eligible
attribution-eligible Medicare patients to whom the APM Medicare patients for any APM Entity that is participating in an
Entity or eligible clinician furnishes Medicare Part B Advanced APM that does not allow such prospectively attributed
covered professional services during the QP Medicare patients to be attributed again.
Performance Period. Similarly, Threshold Scores used
for QP determinations calculated using the payment
amount method are calculated as a ratio of the
aggregate of payments for Medicare Part B covered
professional services furnished by the APM Entity or
eligible clinician to attributed beneficiaries during the
QP Performance Period and the aggregate of
payments for Medicare Part B Part B covered
professional services furnished by the APM Entity or
eligible clinician to attribution-eligible beneficiaries.
Advanced There currently is no targeted review process for QP Beginning with the 2021 QP Performance Period, we will accept
APMs: determinations. Targeted Review requests under limited circumstances where an
Targeted eligible clinician or APM Entity believes in good faith CMS has
Review of QP made a clerical error such that an eligible clinician(s) was not
Determinations included on a Participation List of an APM Entity participating in an
Advanced APM for purposes of QP or Partial QP determinations.

30
 Quality Payment Program CY 2021 NPRM: Public Reporting via Physician Compare Overview

Policy Area CY 2020 Policy CY 2021 Proposed

Public Release of Aggregate Performance Data: No change
Reporting Aggregate MIPS data, including the minimum and
Under maximum MIPS performance category and final scores,
Physician will be available on Physician Compare beginning with
Compare Year 2 (CY 2018 data, available starting in late
CY2020), as technically feasible.
Facility-based Clinician Indicator: No change
Publicly report an indicator if a MIPS eligible clinician is
scored using facility-based measurement, as
technically feasible and appropriate. Link from
Physician Compare to Hospital Compare where
facility-based measure information that applies to the
clinician or group would be available, beginning with
Year 3 (2019 performance information available for
public reporting in late 2020).
Definitions & Proposed Regulation Text Changes: Definitions & Proposed Regulation Text Changes:
None We propose to define Physician Compare to mean the Physician
Compare Internet Web site of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (or a successor Web site).

31
Appendix: APP Core Quality Measure Set
Collection Meaningful
Measure # Measure Title Submitter Type
Type Measure Area
Quality ID # 321 CAHPS for MIPS CAHPS for Third Party Patient’s
MIPS Survey Intermediary Experience
Quality ID # 001 Diabetes: Hemoglobin A1c eCQM/MIPS APM Entity/Third Mgt. of Chronic
(HbA1c) Poor Control CQM Party Conditions
Intermediary
Quality ID # 134 Preventive Care and Screening: eCQM/MIPS APM Entity/Third Treatment of
Screening for Depression and CQM Party Mental Health
Follow-up Plan Intermediary
Quality ID # 236 Controlling High Blood Pressure eCQM/MIPS APM Entity/Third Mgt. of Chronic
CQM Party Conditions
Intermediary
Measure # TBD Hospital-Wide, 30-day, All-Cause Administrative N/A Admissions &
Unplanned Readmission (HWR) Claims Readmissions
Rate for MIPS Eligible Clinician
Groups
Measure # TBD Risk Standardized, All-Cause Administrative N/A Admissions &
Unplanned Admissions for Claims Readmissions
Multiple Chronic Conditions for
ACOs

32