Appendix J 2025 MVP Candidates: Instructions and Template

OMB control number: 0938-134
Expiration Date: 02/28/2027

SUBMITTING MIPS VALUE PATHWAYS (MVP) CANDIDATES:
INSTRUCTIONS AND TEMPLATE
Background
Purpose
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) invites the interested parties to submit Merit-based
Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Value Pathways (MVP) candidates for CMS’ consideration and potential
implementation through future rulemaking.
This solicitation is separate from the annual Call for Quality Measures, Call for Improvement Activities, and
Solicitation for Specialty Set Recommendations.

About MVPs
Through MVP implementation and reporting, CMS aims to improve patient outcomes, allow for more
meaningful reporting by specialists and other MIPS eligible clinicians, and reduce burden and complexity
associated with selecting from a large inventory of measures and activities found under traditional MIPS.
MVPs provide a pathway for clinicians to report on an applicable clinical topic based on their specialty, their
medical condition focus, or the setting in which they provide patient care. CMS has identified priority specialties
and clinical topics for MVP development. Interested parties are encouraged to submit MVPs that address these
priority areas. The 2025 MVP “Needs and Priorities” document provides additional information and will be
available in the QPP website, MVP Candidate Development & Submission webpage, MVPs Development
Resources ZIP file.
The MVP framework strives to link measures and improvement activities that address a common clinical theme
across the 4 MIPS performance categories. More details regarding the intent of the MVP framework can be
found on the MVP Candidate Development & Submission webpage.
While stakeholder feedback in MVP development is appreciated, ultimately CMS will determine if a given MVP
candidate will move forward through rulemaking. CMS owns all MVPs that are established through notice and
comment rulemaking. CMS will determine if the MVP is appropriate and responsive to the needs and priorities
of the Agency, Department, and Administration. In addition to determining if an MVP candidate aligns with
programmatic needs, CMS will also determine when an MVP candidate is ready for proposal through rulemaking
for future implementation.
In the Calendar Year (CY) 2023 Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Final Rule, we finalized the modification of the MVP
development process to include a 30-day feedback period for interested parties to submit feedback on
candidate MVPs prior to potentially including an MVP in a notice of proposed rulemaking. At the discretion of

1

CMS and when possible, we will extend the 30-day feedback period up to 45-days in order to give interested
parties additional time to provide feedback.
All MVPs, whether they are new or existing MVPs with updates, must undergo notice and comment rulemaking
and are subject to the public comment period. If CMS determines that additional changes are needed for an
MVP once it’s implemented, CMS may take additional steps through notice and comment rulemaking to make
updates.

MVP Candidate Submission Instructions and Template
Introduction

Use the standardized template below to submit an MVP candidate for consideration. MVP candidate
submissions should include measures and activities across the quality, cost, and improvement activities
performance categories. In addition to these core performance categories, each MVP candidate includes what is
referred to as the foundational layer, which includes the Promoting Interoperability measure/objective set and
two population health measures:
• Q479: Hospital-Wide, 30-Day, All-Cause Unplanned Readmission (HWR) Rate for the Merit-based Incentive
Payment Program (MIPS) Groups; and,
• Q484: Clinician and Clinician Group Risk-standardized Hospital Admission Rates for Patients with Multiple
Chronic Conditions.
The foundational layer measures are prefilled in the template (Tables 2B and 2C) because they are required
across all MVP candidates and can’t be changed. The Promoting Interoperability performance category measure
specifications are available on the Promoting Interoperability Performance Category webpage.
Complete and submit Table 1 and Table 2A of the template below for each intended MVP candidate. Both tables
must be completed for CMS to consider your submission.
• Table 1 should include high-level descriptive information as outlined below.
• Table 2A should include the specific quality measures, improvement activities, and cost measures for the
MVP candidate submission.
o CMS isn’t prescriptive regarding the number of measures and activities that may be included in an
MVP as long as there are a sufficient number of measures and activities to meet the reporting
requirements; therefore, when completing Table 2A, the number of rows included should reflect the
number of measures/activities that are necessary to describe the MVP candidate submission.
o IA_PCMH is included in all MVPs because MIPS eligible clinicians in a patient-centered medical home
or comparable specialty practice may attest to it and receive an improvement activity score of 100
percent per statute (Code of Federal Regulations § 414.1380(b)(3)(ii)).
o IA_MVP: Practice-Wide Quality Improvement in MIPS Value Pathways is included in all MVPs as it was
developed specifically for MVP reporting.
Additional guidance and considerations for completing Table 2A can be found in the Appendix.

MVP Candidate Content and Review Process

CMS encourages MVP submissions to include quality/cost measures and improvement activities that are
currently available in MIPS. To view all MIPS measures and improvement activities, please visit the Quality
Payment Program (QPP) Resource Library or review the most recent Measures Under Consideration (MUC) list.
Measures and/or improvement activities not currently in the MIPS inventory will be required to follow the
existing pre-rulemaking processes to be considered for inclusion within an MVP.

2

Quality Measures

The current inventory of MIPS quality measures and Quality Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) measures include both
cross-cutting and specialty/clinical topic specific quality measures. The following 2025 resources will be available
on the QPP Resource Library:
• 2025 MIPS Quality Measures List (XLSX)
• 2025 Cross-Cutting Quality Measures (PDF)
• 2025 QCDR Measure Specifications (XLSX)
QDCR measures may also be considered for inclusion in an MVP if the measure has met all requirements,
including being fully tested at the clinician level, and approved through the self-nomination process.
In addition, as described in the CY 2022 PFS final rule, when developing MVP candidates, the interested parties
should consider that:
• MVPs must include at least one outcome measure that is relevant to the MVP topic and each clinician
specialty:
o An outcome measure may include the following measure types: outcome, intermediate
outcome, and patient-reported outcome-based performance measure.
 An example of a single specialty MVP is the Patient Safety and Support of Positive
Experiences with Anesthesia MVP. This MVP was developed to include an outcome
measure related to care provided by this specialty.
o If an outcome measure isn’t available for a given clinician specialty, a high priority measure must
be included and available for each clinician specialty included.
 An example of an MVP that contains high priority measures is the Advancing Cancer
Care MVP. This MVP contains one outcome measure, but also includes quality measures
that are categorized as high priority in the instance the outcome measure is not
applicable.
o Outcome-based administrative claims measures may be included to support the quality
performance category of an MVP candidate.
 An example of an MVP containing an outcome-based administrative claims measure for
use in the quality performance category is the Improving Care for Lower Extremity Joint
Repair MVP.

Improvement Activities

Improvement activities are broader in application and cover a wide range of clinician types and health
conditions. Improvement activities that best drive the quality of care addressed in the MVP topic should be
prioritized. Improvement activities should complement and/or supplement the quality action of the measures in
the MVP candidate submission, rather than duplicate it.
In addition, MVPs should seek to identify/incorporate opportunities to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion
by selecting health equity focused improvement activities; there are 36 health equity focused improvement
activities in the current inventory. The 2025 Improvement Activity Inventory will be available on the QPP
Resource Library.
New improvement activities may be submitted using the 2025 Call for Measures and Activities process, which
will outlined on the QPP Resource Library.

3

Cost Measures

The current inventory of cost measures covers different types of care. Episode-based cost measures assess
specific clinically related costs during a defined period, or “episode of care.” These measures can apply to
clinicians and clinician groups who perform procedures (e.g., knee arthroplasty), treat patients during acute
inpatient hospitalizations (e.g. stays for lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage), provide ongoing chronic condition
management (e.g., ongoing diabetes care), or practice in certain settings (e.g., an emergency department).
There are also two broader measures (population-based cost measures) that assess overall costs of care. The
Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) Clinician measure assesses costs of care for a patient's inpatient
hospital stay during the period 3 days prior to a hospital stay through 30 days after discharge. The Total Per
Capita Cost (TPCC) measure assesses the overall cost of care delivered to a patient with a focus on the primary
care they receive from their providers.
The following cost measure information will be available on the QPP website:
• MIPS 2025 Summary of Cost Measures (PDF): Provides an overview of the cost measures, their
development, and estimated cost and clinician coverage metrics for the measures currently in use.
• Measure Information Form (ZIP): Describes the methodology used to construct each measure.
• Measure Codes List (ZIP): Contains service codes and clinical logic used in the methodology, including
episode triggers, exclusion categories, episode subgroups, assigned items and services, and risk
adjustors.
New cost measures may be submitted for consideration for use in the MIPS program using the 2025 Call for
Measures and Activities process, which will be outlined on the QPP Resource Library.

Submission and Review Process

MVP candidates can be submitted through the Call for MVPs process on a rolling basis throughout the year and
will be considered for potential inclusion in the upcoming notice of proposed rulemaking. If finalized,
implementation would begin with the CY 2026 performance period/2028 MIPS payment year.
MVP candidates will be reviewed by CMS as they’re received. CMS will use the MVP development criteria (see
Appendix below) to determine if the MVP candidate is feasible.
CMS will also evaluate the quality and cost measures from a technical perspective to validate applicability to the
clinician being measured for performance. CMS will review all potential specialty-specific quality or cost
measures available in the MIPS inventory to ensure only the most appropriate measures are included in the
MVP candidate.
CMS may reach out to submitters of MVP candidates on an as-needed basis should questions arise during the
review process. Submitting an MVP candidate doesn’t guarantee it will be considered or accepted for the
rulemaking process. CMS won’t communicate the status of an MVP candidate (i.e., approved, rejected, or
considered for a future year) with those who submitted the candidate prior to the publication of the proposed
rule.
Completed MVP candidate templates (inclusive of Table 1 and Table 2A) should be submitted to
[email protected] for CMS evaluation.

Table 1: Instructions and Template

4

Please provide high-level information addressing the following topics: MVP Name, Primary/Alternative Points of
Contact, Intent of Measurement, Measure and Activity Linkages with the MVP, Appropriateness,
Comprehensibility, and Incorporation of the Patient Voice. A checklist of items is provided in Table 1 to provide
further guidance.
Table 1: MVP Descriptive Information
MVP Name

Primary/Alternative
Contact Names

Intent of
Measurement

Measure and
Activity Linkages
with the MVP

5

•

Provide title that succinctly describes the proposed MVP.

•

CMS encourages a title suggesting action (for example: Improving
Disease Prevention Management).

•

Primary point of contact: Provide full name, organization name, email,
and phone number.

•

One or more alternative points of contact: Provide full name, email, and
phone number.

•

What is the intent of the MVP?

•

Is the intent of the MVP the same at the individual clinician and group
level?

•

Are there opportunities to improve the quality of care and value in the
area being measured?

•

Why is the topic of measurement meaningful to clinicians?

•

Does the MVP act as a vehicle to incrementally phase clinicians into
APMs? How so?

•

Is the MVP reportable by small and rural practices? Does the MVP
consider reporting burden to those small and rural practices?

•

Which Meaningful Measure health care priority does the MVP address?

•

How do the measures and activities within the proposed MVP link to
one another? (For example, do the measures and activities assess
different dimensions of care provided by the clinician or are they
assessing the same clinical actions?). Linkages between measures and
activities should be considered as complementary relationships.

•

Are the measures and activities related or a part of the episode of care
or continuum of care offered by the clinicians?

•

Why are the chosen measures and activities most meaningful to the
specialty?

Appropriateness

Comprehensibility

Incorporation of the
Patient Voice

6

•

Is the MVP candidate developed for multiple specialties or is it focused
to a specific specialty? If so, has the MVP been developed
collaboratively across specialties?

•

Are the measures clinically appropriate for the clinicians being
measured?

•

Do the measures capture a clinically definable population of clinicians
and patients?

•

Do the care settings captured by the measures represent those most
appropriate for the specialty intended by the MVP?

•

Prior to incorporating a measure in an MVP, is the denominator of the
measure inclusive of the intended specialty or sub-specialty?

•

Is the MVP comprehensive and understandable by the clinician or
group?

•

Will the intent of the MVP be meaningful to patients?

•

Does the MVP take into consideration patients in rural and underserved
areas?

•

Were patients involved in the MVP development process? If so, how
was their voice included in development of the MVP candidate?

•

To the extent feasible, does the MVP include patient-reported outcome
measures, patient experience measures, and/or patient satisfaction
measures?

Table 2A: Instructions and Template

Please use the Table 2A template format below to identify the quality measures, improvement activities, and
cost measures for your MVP candidate. At a minimum, Table 2A should include measure/activity IDs,
measure/activity titles, measure collection types, and rationale for inclusion. The number of rows included
should reflect the number of measures/activities that are necessary to describe the MVP candidate submission.
Generally, an MVP should include enough quality measures and improvement activities to allow MVP
participants to select measures and activities to meet MIPS requirements. The total number of quality measures
and activities represented within the MVP candidate may depend on their availability within MIPS.
• For example, the 2024 Advancing Care for Heart Disease MVP includes 18 quality measures and 14
improvement activities. Cardiac disease can encompass several conditions relative to heart care; therefore,
CMS has selected measures and improvement activities that are closely aligned to the topic and offer
clinicians some choice.
Additionally, each MVP must include at least 1 cost measure relevant and applicable to the MVP topic. The
number of cost measures in an MVP may vary depending on the clinical topic of the MVP.
The foundational layer of measures is included below (Table 2B and Table 2C) and is pre-filled for each MVP
candidate submission and can’t be changed.
Please refer to the Appendix below for further guidance regarding measure and activity selection.
Table 2A: Quality Measures, Improvement Activities, and Cost Measures
QUALITY MEASURES

IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES

For each measure, provide:

For each activity, provide:

7

COST MEASURES
For each measure, provide:

Table 2B: Foundational Layer – Population Health Measures
MEASURE
MEASURE TITLE AND
COLLECTION
TYPE /
QUALITY #
DESCRIPTION
TYPE
HIGH
PRIORITY

NQS DOMAIN

HEALTH CARE
PRIORITY

MEASURE
STEWARD

479

Hospital-Wide, 30Day, All-Cause
Unplanned
Readmission (HWR)
Rate for the MeritBased Incentive
Payment Program
(MIPS) Eligible
Clinician Groups

Administrativ
e Claims

Outcome

Communication Promote
and Care
Effective
Coordination
Communication
& Coordination
of Care

CMS

484

Clinician and Clinician
Group Riskstandardized Hospital
Admission Rates for
Patients with Multiple
Chronic Conditions

Administrativ
e Claims

Outcome

Effective
Clinical Care

CMS

Promote
Effective
Prevention and
Treatment of
Chronic Disease

Table 2C: Foundational Layer – Promoting Interoperability Measures
OBJECTIVE

MEASURE ID, TITLE, AND DESCRIPTION

Protect Patient
Health
Information

PI_PPHI_1: Security Risk Analysis:
Conduct or review a security risk analysis
in accordance with the requirements in 45
CFR 164.308(a)(1), including addressing
the security (to include encryption) of
ePHI data created or maintained by
certified electronic health record
technology (CEHRT) in accordance with
requirements in 45 CFR 164.312(a)(2)(iv)
and 45 CFR 164.306(d)(3), implement
security updates as necessary, and correct
identified security deficiencies as part of
the MIPS eligible clinician’s risk
management process.

8

REQUIRED
Yes

EXCLUSION
AVAILABLE
No

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
Annual
requirement for
Promoting
Interoperability
submission but
not scored.

OBJECTIVE

MEASURE ID, TITLE, AND DESCRIPTION

REQUIRED

EXCLUSION
AVAILABLE

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION

Protect Patient
Health
Information

PI_PPHI_2: High Priority Practices Safety
Assurance Factors for EHR Resilience
Guide (SAFER Guide):
Conduct an annual self-assessment using
the High Priority Practices Guide at any
point during the calendar year in which
the performance period occurs.

Yes

No

Annual
requirement for
Promoting
Interoperability
submission but
not scored.

Attestation

PI_ONCDIR_1: ONC Direct Review
Attestation:
I attest that I - (1) Acknowledge the
requirement to cooperate in good faith
with ONC direct review of his or her health
information technology certified under the
ONC Health IT Certification Program if a
request to assist in ONC direct review is
received; and (2) If requested, cooperated
in good faith with ONC direct review of his
or her health information technology
certified under the ONC Health IT
Certification Program as authorized by 45
CFR part 170, subpart E, to the extent that
such technology meets (or can be used to
meet) the definition of CEHRT, including
by permitting timely access to such
technology and demonstrating its
capabilities as implemented and used by
the MIPS eligible clinician in the field.

Yes

No

Annual
requirement for
Promoting
Interoperability
submission but
not scored.

Attestation

PI_INFBLO_2: Actions to Limit or Restrict
Compatibility or Interoperability of CEHRT:
I attest to CMS that I did not knowingly
and willfully take action (such as to disable
functionality) to limit or restrict the
compatibility or interoperability of
certified EHR technology.

Yes

No

Annual
requirement for
Promoting
Interoperability
submission but
not scored.

e-Prescribing

PI_EP_1: e-Prescribing:
At least one permissible prescription
written by the MIPS eligible clinician is
transmitted electronically using CEHRT.

Yes

Yes

9

OBJECTIVE

MEASURE ID, TITLE, AND DESCRIPTION

REQUIRED

EXCLUSION
AVAILABLE

e-Prescribing

PI_EP_2: Query of Prescription Drug
Monitoring Program (PDMP):
For at least one Schedule II opioid or
Schedule III or IV drug electronically
prescribed using CEHRT during the
performance period, the MIPS eligible
clinician uses data from CEHRT to conduct
a query of a PDMP for prescription drug
history.

Yes

Yes

Provider to
Patient Exchange

PI_PEA_1: Provide Patients Electronic
Access to Their Health Information:
For at least one unique patient seen by
the MIPS eligible clinician: (1) The patient
(or the patient-authorized representative)
is provided timely access to view online,
download, and transmit his or her health
information; and (2) The MIPS eligible
clinician ensures the patient's health
information is available for the patient (or
patient-authorized representative) to
access using any application of their
choice that is configured to meet the
technical specifications of the Application
Programming Interface (API) in the MIPS
eligible clinician's certified electronic
health record technology (CEHRT).

Yes

No

Health
Information
Exchange

PI_HIE_1: Support Electronic Referral
Loops by Sending Health Information:
For at least one transition of care or
referral, the MIPS eligible clinician that
transitions or refers their patient to
another setting of care or health care
provider — (1) creates a summary of care
record using certified electronic health
record technology (CEHRT); and (2)
electronically exchanges the summary of
care record.

Yes

Yes

10

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION

The optional
PI_HIE_5 or
PI_HIE_6 Health
Information
Exchange measure
may be reported
as an alternative
reporting option
to PI_HIE_1 and
PI_HIE_4.

OBJECTIVE

MEASURE ID, TITLE, AND DESCRIPTION

REQUIRED

EXCLUSION
AVAILABLE

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION

Health
Information
Exchange

PI_HIE_4: Support Electronic Referral
Loops by Receiving and Reconciling
Health Information:
For at least one electronic summary of
care record received for patient
encounters during the performance
period for which a MIPS eligible clinician
was the receiving party of a transition of
care or referral, or for patient encounters
during the performance period in which
the MIPS eligible clinician has never
before encountered the patient, the MIPS
eligible clinician conducts clinical
information reconciliation for medication,
medication allergy, and current problem
list.

Yes

Yes

The optional
PI_HIE_5 or
PI_HIE_6 Health
Information
Exchange measure
may be reported
as an alternative
reporting option
to PI_HIE_1 and
PI_HIE_4.

Health
Information
Exchange

PI_HIE_5: Health Information Exchange
(HIE) Bi-Directional Exchange:
The MIPS eligible clinician or group must
attest that they engage in bidirectional
exchange with an HIE to support
transitions of care.

Yes

No

This measure is an
optional
alternative Health
Information
Exchange measure
and may be
reported as an
alternative
reporting option in
place of PI_HIE_1
and PI_HIE_4 OR
PI_HIE_6.

11

OBJECTIVE

MEASURE ID, TITLE, AND DESCRIPTION

REQUIRED

EXCLUSION
AVAILABLE

Health
Information
Exchange

PI_HIE_6: Enabling Exchange Under the
Trusted Exchange Framework and
Common Agreement (TEFCA):
The MIPS eligible clinician or group must
attest to the following:
• Participating as a signatory to a
Framework Agreement (as that
term is defined by the Common
Agreement for Nationwide Health
Information Interoperability as
published in the Federal Register
and on ONC’s website) in good
standing (that is, not suspended)
and enabling secure, bi-directional
exchange of information to occur,
in production, for every patient
encounter, transition or referral,
and record stored or maintained
in the EHR during the
performance period, in
accordance with applicable law
and policy.
• Using the functions of CEHRT to
support bi-directional exchange of
patient information, in
production, under this Framework
Agreement.

Yes

No

Public Health and
Clinical Data
Exchange

PI_PHCDRR_1: Immunization Registry
Reporting:
The MIPS eligible clinician is in active
engagement with a public health agency
to submit immunization data and receive
immunization forecasts and histories from
the public health immunization registry
/immunization information system (IIS).

Yes

Yes

Public Health and
Clinical Data
Exchange

PI_PHCDRR_2: Syndromic Surveillance
Reporting:
The MIPS eligible clinician is in active
engagement with a public health agency
to submit syndromic surveillance data
from an urgent care setting.

No

No

12

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
This measure is an
optional
alternative Health
Information
Exchange measure
and may be
reported as an
alternative
reporting option
in place of
PI_HIE_1 and
PI_HIE_4 OR
PI_HIE_5.

Bonus Promoting
Interoperability
measure at this
time.

OBJECTIVE

MEASURE ID, TITLE, AND DESCRIPTION

Public Health and
Clinical Data
Exchange

PI_PHCDRR_3: Electronic Case Reporting:
The MIPS eligible clinician is in active
engagement with a public health agency
to electronically submit case reporting of
reportable conditions.

Public Health and
Clinical Data
Exchange

PI_PHCDRR_4: Public Health Registry
Reporting:
The MIPS eligible clinician is in active
engagement with a public health agency
to submit data to public health registries.

Public Health and
Clinical Data
Exchange

PI_PHCDRR_5: Clinical Data Registry
Reporting:
The MIPS eligible clinician is in active
engagement to submit data to a clinical
data registry.

13

REQUIRED
Yes

No

No

EXCLUSION
AVAILABLE

ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION

Yes

No

No

Bonus Promoting
Interoperability
measure at this
time.

Bonus Promoting
Interoperability
measure at this
time.

Appendix
Additional Guidance and Considerations When Submitting an MVP Candidate

Consideration should be given to the following criteria when developing rationales for including measures and
activities in your MVP candidate submission:

Quality Measures:
•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

Do the quality measures included in the MVP meet the existing quality measure inclusion criteria? (For
example, does the measure align with current clinical guidelines?)
Have the quality measure denominators been evaluated to ensure they are relatable in clinical topic,
setting, and specialty (including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified registered nurse
anesthetists, and clinical social workers) to the cost measure(s) and activities within the MVP?
o These quality measures should include appropriate settings and applicability to non-physician
practitioners (e.g., nurse practitioners, physician assistants, etc.).
Have the quality measure numerators been assessed to ensure congruency to the MVP topic?
Does the MVP include outcome measures or high-priority measures in instances where outcome measures
are not available or applicable?
- CMS prefers use of patient experience/survey measures when available. CMS encourages the
interested parties to utilize our established pre-rulemaking processes, such as the Call for Quality
Measures, described in the CY 2020 PFS final rule (84 FR 62953 through 62955) to develop outcome
measures relevant to their specialty if outcome measures currently do not exist and for eventual
inclusion into an MVP.
To the extent feasible, does the MVP avoid including quality measures that are topped out?
For which collection types are the measures available?
What role does each quality measure play in driving quality clinical care, improving healthcare value, and
addressing the health equity gap within the MVP?
To the extent feasible, specialty and sub-specialty specific quality measures are incorporated into the MVP.
Broadly applicable and/or cross-cutting quality measures may be incorporated if relevant to the clinicians
being measured.

Improvement Activities:
•

•
•
•
•

What role does the improvement activity play in driving quality care and improving value within the MVP?
Provide a rationale as to why each improvement activity was included.
Describe how the improvement activity can be used to improve the quality of performance in clinical
practices for those clinicians who would report this MVP.
Does the improvement activity complement and/or supplement the quality action of the measures in the
MVP, rather than duplicate it?
To the extent feasible, does the MVP include improvement activities that can be conducted using CEHRT
functions? The use of improvement activities that specify the use of technologies will help to further align
with the CEHRT requirement under the Promoting Interoperability performance category.
If there are no relevant specialty or sub-specialty specific improvement activities, does the MVP includes
broadly applicable improvement activities (that is applicable to the clinician type)?

Cost Measures:
•
•

•

14

What role does the cost measure(s) play in driving quality care and improving value within the MVP?
Provide a rationale as to why each cost measure was selected.
How do the included cost measure(s) relate to quality measures and activities included in the MVP?
Are the included cost measures relevant to the specific types of care (for example, conditions or
procedures) and clinicians (for example, specialties or subspecialties) intended to be assessed by the MVP?

Version History
Date

Change Description

9/25/2024

Original version
###

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), no persons are required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information
collection is 0938-1314 (Expiration date: 2/28/2027). This information collection is the tool for the general public to submit
Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Value Pathways (MVP) candidates for CMS consideration and potential
implementation through future rulemaking. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 12
hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, to
review and complete the information collection. This information collection is voluntary and all information collected will be kept
private in accordance with regulations at 45 CFR 155.260, Privacy and Security of Personally Identifiable Information. 
Pursuant to this regulation, CMS may only use or disclose personally identifiable information to the extent that such
information is necessary to carry out their statutory and regulatory mandated functions. If you have comments concerning the
accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Attn:
PRA Reports Clearance Officer, Mail Stop C4-26-05, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. If you have questions or concerns regarding
where to submit your documents, please contact QPP at [email protected].

15