Cited by 12Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationHealthcare Quality and Management

Chasm Between Cancer Quality Measures and Electronic Health Record Data Quality

Open access
Schorer, Anna E., Moldwin, Richard, Koskimaki, Jacob, Bernstam, Elmer V., Venepalli, Neeta K., Miller, Robert S., Chen, James L.·2022·JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) requires eligible clinicians to report clinical quality measures (CQMs) in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) to maximize reimbursement. To determine whether structured data in electronic health records (EHRs) were adequate to report MIPS CQMs, EHR data aggregated by ASCO's CancerLinQ platform were analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the CancerLinQ health technology platform, 19 Oncology MIPS (oMIPS) CQMs were evaluated to determine the presence of data elements (DEs) necessary to satisfy each CQM and the DE percent population with patient data (fill rates). At the time of this analysis, the CancerLinQ network comprised 63 active practices, representing eight different EHR vendors and containing records for more than 1.63 million unique patients with one or more malignant neoplasms (1.73 million cancer cases). RESULTS: Fill rates for the 63 oMIPS-associated DEs varied widely among the practices. The average site had at least one filled DE for 52% of the DEs. Only 35% of the DEs were populated for at least one patient record in 95% of the practices. However, the average DE fill rate of all practices was 23%. No data were found at any practice for 22% of the DEs. Since any oMIPS CQM with an unpopulated DE component resulted in an inability to compute the measure, only two (10.5%) of the 19 oMIPS CQMs were computable for more than 1% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Although EHR systems had relatively high DE fill rates for some DEs, underfilling and inconsistency of DEs in EHRs render automated oncology MIPS CQM calculations impractical.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/cci.21.00128

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [15]RxNorm. U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/rxnorm/ 28792816

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schorer, A. E., Moldwin, R., Koskimaki, J., Bernstam, E. V., Venepalli, N. K., Miller, R. S., & Chen, J. L.
Affiliations
  • Oncology Analytics, Atlanta, GA
  • College of American Pathologists (US)
  • American Society of Clinical Oncology (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, James L.
Venue
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
Published
2022-05
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
e2100128-e2100128
ISSN
2473-4276 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4205166723
Cited by
12
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3
FWCI
2.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR003167, U01TR002393)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
clinical quality indicators, Merit-based Incentive Payment System, MACRA, CancerLinQ
MeSH terms
Data Accuracy, Aged, Medicare, Humans, Neoplasms, United States, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review