[CQM-5714] CMS 156: Population Criteria 3 Numerator logic Created: 10/14/22 Updated: 02/01/23 Resolved: 10/28/22 |
|
Status: | Closed |
Project: | eCQM Issue Tracker |
Component/s: | None |
Type: | EC eCQMs - Eligible Clinicians | Priority: | Major |
Reporter: | Jeff Jennings (Inactive) | Assignee: | Mathematica EC eCQM Team |
Resolution: | Answered | Votes: | 0 |
Labels: | None |
Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
Contact Name: | Jeff Jennings | ||||||||
Contact Email: | jjennings@cerner.com | ||||||||
Solution: | Thank you for your inquiry for CMS156v11 (2023 performance period). The measure intent for numerator 3 is the sum of numerator 1 and numerator 2 deduplicated, therefore, the intended outcome of the scenario where patient qualifies for numerator 1, numerator 2 and numerator exclusions is numerator 3 met. The logic for numerator 3 currently does not capture this specific scenario, as the logic construct does not account for numerator exclusions applied to numerator 2. The measure developer plans to address this in the upcoming Annual Update publication. | ||||||||
2023 Performance Period EC eCQMs: |
CMS0156v11
|
Description |
CMS 156 population criteria 3 numerator logic: We have a scenario where a patient qualifies for the numerator in Population Criteria 1. The patient also qualified as a numerator exclusion in Population Criteria 2. What should the patient outcome be for Population Criteria 3? Logic: Numerator = ("Numerator 2" and not "Numerator Exclusion" (Numerator Exclusion 2) ) or ("Numerator 1" and not "Numerator 2" ) |
Comments |
Comment by Mathematica EC eCQM Team [ 10/24/22 ] |
We continue to investigate the issue noted in your ticket and will provide a response as soon as we are able. Thank you for your patience. |
Comment by Isbelia Briceno [ 10/19/22 ] |
Is there an update on this question? Thanks |
Comment by Mathematica EC eCQM Team [ 10/17/22 ] |
Thank you for submitting your question. We will review your ticket and provide a response as soon as possible. |