2024 MIPS Measure #374: Closing the Referral Loop: Receipt of Specialist Report

Quality ID 374
eMeasure ID CMS50v12
High Priority Measure Yes
Specifications EHR Registry
Measure Type Process
Specialty Allergy/Immunology Cardiology Dermatology Endocrinology Family Medicine Gastroenterology General Surgery Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Neurology Obstetrics/Gynecology Oncology/Hematology Ophthalmology Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology Physical Medicine Preventive Medicine Pulmonology Rheumatology Thoracic Surgery Urology Vascular Surgery

Measure Description

Percentage of patients with referrals, regardless of age, for which the referring clinician receives a report from the clinician to whom the patient was referred.



This measure is to be submitted a minimum of once per performance period for the first referral for all patients during the measurement period. This measure may be submitted by Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) eligible clinicians who perform the quality actions described in the measure for the patients for whom a referral was made during the measurement period based on the services provided and the measure-specific denominator coding. The clinician who refers the patient to another clinician is the clinician who should be held accountable for the performance of this measure. All MIPS eligible clinicians reporting on this measure should note that all data for the reporting year is to be submitted by the deadline established by CMS, however, only first referrals made between January 1 - October 31 (the measurement period) will count towards the denominator to allow adequate time for the referring clinician to collect the consult report by the end of the performance period. When clinicians to whom patients are referred communicate the consult report as soon as possible with the referring clinicians, it ensures that the communication loop is closed in a timely manner and that the data is included in the submission to CMS.

NOTE: Patient encounters for this measure conducted via telehealth (including but not limited to encounters coded with GQ, GT, 95, POS 02, POS 10) are allowable.

Measure Submission Type:

Measure data may be submitted by individual MIPS eligible clinicians, groups, or third-party intermediaries. The listed denominator criteria are used to identify the intended patient population. The numerator options included in this specification are used to submit the quality actions as allowed by the measure. The quality data codes listed do not need to be submitted by MIPS eligible clinicians, groups, or third-party intermediaries that utilize this modality for submissions; however, these codes may be submitted for those third-party intermediaries that utilize Medicare Part B claims data. For more information regarding Application Programming Interface (API), please refer to the Quality Payment Program (QPP) website.



Number of patients, regardless of age, who had an encounter during the performance period and were referred by one clinician to another clinician on or before October 31

DENOMINATOR NOTE: If there are multiple referrals for a patient during the measurement period, use the first referral.

*Signifies that this CPT Category I code is a non-covered service under the Medicare Part B Physician Fee Schedule (PFS). These non-covered services should be counted in the denominator population for MIPS CQMs.

Denominator Criteria (Eligible Cases):

Patients regardless of age on the date of the encounter


Patient encounter during the performance period (CPT or HCPCS): 92002, 92004, 92012, 92014, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205, 99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, 99381*, 99382*, 99383*, 99384*, 99385*, 99386*, 99387*, 99391*, 99392*, 99393*, 99394*, 99395*, 99396*, 99397*


Patient was referred to another clinician or specialist during the measurement period: G9968



Number of patients with a referral on or before October 31, for which the referring clinician received a report from the clinician to whom the patient was referred


Referral – A request from one clinician to another clinician for evaluation, treatment, or co-management of a patient's condition. This term encompasses “referral” and consultation as defined by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Report – A written document prepared by the eligible clinician (and staff) to whom the patient was referred and that accounts for his or her findings, provides summary of care information about findings, diagnostics, assessments and/or plans of care, and is provided to the referring eligible clinician.

NUMERATOR NOTE: The consultant report that will successfully close the referral loop should be related to the first referral for a patient during the measurement period. If there are multiple consultant reports received by the referring clinician which pertain to a particular referral, use the first consultant report to satisfy the measure.

The clinician to whom the patient was referred is responsible for sending the consultant report that will fulfill the communication. Note: this is not the same clinician who would report on the measure.

Numerator Options:

Performance Met: Clinician who referred the patient to another clinician received a report from the clinician to whom the patient was referred (G9969)


Performance Not Met: Clinician who referred the patient to another clinician did not receive a report from the clinician to whom the patient was referred (G9970)



Problems in the outpatient referral and consultation process have been documented, including lack of timeliness of information and inadequate provision of information between the specialist and the requesting physician [1,2,3]. In a study of physician satisfaction with the outpatient referral process, Gandhi et al. (2000) found that 68% of specialists reported receiving no information from the primary care provider prior to referral visits, and 25% of primary care providers had still not received any information from specialists 4 weeks after referral visits. In another study of 963 referrals pediatricians scheduled appointments with specialists for only 39% and sent patient information to the specialists for only 51% of referrals [2].

In a 2006 report to Congress, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) found that care coordination programs improved quality of care for patients, reduced hospitalizations, and improved adherence to evidencebased care guidelines, especially among patients with diabetes and CHD. Associations with cost-savings were less clear; this was attributed to how well the intervention group was chosen and defined, as well as the intervention put in place. Additionally, cost-savings were usually calculated in the short-term, while some argue that the greatest cost-savings accrue over time [4].

Improved mechanisms for information exchange could facilitate communication between providers, whether for timelimited referrals or consultations, on-going co-management, or during care transitions. For example, a study by Branger, van’t Hooft, van der Wouden, Moorman & van Bemmel (1999) found that an electronic communication network that linked the computer-based patient records of physicians who had shared care of patients with diabetes significantly increased frequency of communications between physicians and availability of important clinical data [5]. There was a 3-fold increase in the likelihood that the specialist provided written communication of results if the primary care physician scheduled appointments and sent patient information to the specialist [2].

Care coordination is a focal point in the current health care reform and our nation's ambulatory health information technology (HIT) framework. The National Priorities Partnership (2008) recently highlighted care coordination as one of the most critical areas for development of quality measurement and improvement [6].


1. Gandhi, T. K., Sittig, D. F., Franklin, M., Sussman, A. J., Fairchild, D. G., & Bates, D. W. (2000). Communication breakdown in the outpatient referral process. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 15(9), 626- 631. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.91119.x

2. Forrest, C. B., Glade, G. B., Baker, A. E., Bocian, A., von Schrader, S., & Starfield, B. (2000). Coordination of specialty referrals and physician satisfaction with referral care. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 154(5), 499-506. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.154.5.499

3. Stille, C. J., Jerant, A., Bell, D., Meltzer, D., & Elmore, J. G. (2005). Coordinating care across diseases, settings, and clinicians: A key role for the generalist in practice. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142(8), 700-708. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-8-200504190-00038

4. MedPAC. (2006). Report to the Congress: Medicare payment policy. Retrieved from https://www.medpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/import_data/scrape_files/docs/defaultsource/reports/Mar06_EntireReport.pdf

5. Branger, P. J., van't Hooft, A., van der Wouden, J. C., Moorman, P. W., & van Bemmel, J. H. (1999). Shared care for diabetes: Supporting communication between primary and secondary care. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 53(2-3), 133-142. doi: 10.1016/s1386-5056(98)00154-3

6. National Priorities Partnership. (2008). National priorities and goals: Aligning our efforts to transform America’s healthcare. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum.


Clinical Recommendation Statements


Register with MDinteractive