River
Y CombinatorBacked by Y Combinator
Log InStart Free
FREE TEMPLATE

MIPS Reporting Checklist Template

Three documents and three sheets that pick your six measures from what the record can already evidence, before anyone argues about clinical relevance.

Edit with AIDownload (.docx + .csv)

Free download  ·  No account needed

What you get

Pack of 6 files: 3 documents, 3 spreadsheets

MIPS Reporting Checklist Template
  • Measure RegisterSpreadsheet
  • Measure Selection RationaleDocument
  • Data Capture ProcedureDocument
  • Gap ListSpreadsheet
  • Performance TrackingSpreadsheet
  • Submission NoteDocument
RiverMIPS Reporting Checklist Template

Measure Register, screening view

Twenty-six points gone before a patient is seen

A fictional group, Southmoor Medical Group. Twenty-two clinicians, four sites, 48,000 encounters. Six measures picked the way every checklist says to.

MeasureDenomVisibleComplCeiling
Outcome: reading below the threshold3,4122,76180.9%10
Screening and intervention, the one they are best at11,2409,09380.9%7
Screening with a follow-up plan, adolescents8,9605,71263.7%0
Risk screening in patients over 651,8841,30669.3%0
Documentation of a current list, every visit14,22011,50480.9%7
Outcome: a value above the threshold, inverse1,20697680.9%10
Reachable achievement points34 of 60

43 percent unreachable20 points to two measures under the completeness line, 6 to two caps

The two at zero are not weak measures. They are measures whose eligible population is bigger than the part anyone can see, counted across every payer rather than across Medicare.

Remaining columns: Spec Version, Collection Type, Numerator Evidence Location, Exclusion Evidence Location, Case Count, Care Rate, Evidenceable Rate, Gap, Topped Out Years, New Capture Needed, Owner, Verdict.

Every MIPS reporting checklist gives the same seven steps and the same two pieces of measure advice: pick the ones you already perform well on, and confirm your system can capture the data. Both halves are wrong in a way that is arithmetic rather than debatable. Performing well is a decent predictor that a measure is topped out and capped below its neighbours, and capture is not a checkbox. It is a percentage over a population most practices never build, with a cliff in it.

This pack traces every numerator, denominator and exclusion criterion to the exact place in your own systems that evidences it. Two rates fall out where a practice normally has one: how often the thing was done, and how often it is recorded somewhere a submission can extract. The second is what gets reported. Miss 75 percent of the eligible population, counted across every payer, and the measure is worth zero achievement points rather than most of them.

Southmoor Medical Group picked six measures the way the checklists say to. Two fell below the completeness line on an all-payer denominator they had never built, so both were worth nothing. Two more were capped at seven points for being topped out. That is 26 of 60 achievement points unreachable before a single patient was seen. Reselected on what their systems could already evidence, all 60 were reachable, and the new set needed no new fields at all.

Every document in the pack

The instance nobody can see against the instance nobody can extract, what a required field on every visit actually costs, and the set that scores without one.

MIPS Reporting Checklist Template
RiverTwo failures

Gap List

They look identical and only one is an emergency

 Instance nobody can seeNumerator nobody can extract
What happenedPatient meets the criteria, never reaches the submissionPatient is submitted, evidence is in prose or a scan
Status sentNonePerformance not met
HitsCompletenessPerformance rate
ConsequenceBelow the line, the measure is worth zeroThe rate reads lower than the care
Visible from insideOnly if you built the all-payer denominatorNo. Everything looks green

Southmoor's adolescent screening measure, the first kind

All-payer denominator8,960Instances the feed can see5,712
Completeness63.7%Held at the uninterfaced fourth site36%
Same measure, Medicare only1,090 of 1,204Which reads as91%, and fine

Their inverse outcome measure, the second kind

All-payer denominator1,206With a discrete result911
Result only inside a scanned outside-lab report295Above the threshold among those measured171, or 18.8%

The specification counts a patient with no result as above the threshold, so the reported numerator is 466 and the rate reads 38.6 percent. Lower is better on this measure. Southmoor's reported performance is 2.1 times worse than the care they delivered, and completeness is a clean 100 percent throughout.

The obvious move, submitting only the 911, is cherry-picking. It is a stated reason a submission is not true, accurate and complete, and stated grounds for audit. There are three honest answers and that is not one of them.

RiverThe click price

Data Capture Procedure

What the remediation quote actually costs

The standard fix for a capture gap is a required field on every encounter in that measure's denominator. Six measures, six fields, each one reasonable on its own.

MeasureDenominator instances a year
Outcome: reading below the threshold3,412
Screening and intervention11,240
Screening with a follow-up plan8,960
Risk screening over 651,884
Documentation of a current list14,220
Outcome: a value above the threshold1,206
Interruptions a year40,922

85 on every 100 visitsacross 48,000 encounters, at 18 seconds each: 205 hours a year, 9.3 per clinician

Nobody approved that in one sitting. It arrived as six separate reasonable requests, which is the mechanism behind the complaint that quality reporting eats clinical time. It is arithmetic, so it can be shown before it is agreed to rather than discovered in March.

And two of the six were never clicks

GapWhat it actually needs
Adolescent screening, fourth site invisibleAn interface, not a field
Inverse outcome, scanned outside-lab resultsA discrete result feed or a different laboratory

A practice that thinks it is buying training when it needs an interface spends the year unhappy and the measure still scores zero.

RiverReselected

Measure Selection Rationale

Six chosen on evidence, and none of them their best

MeasureDenomComplCareEvidCeiling
Outcome: reading below the threshold, kept3,41280.9%74.2%73.8%10
Outcome from claims and discrete vitals2,090100%68.8%68.8%10
Numerator is an order, already discrete6,31880.9%71.3%70.9%10
Numerator is a coded procedure4,770100%80.6%80.6%10
Result reported on the claim2,944100%65.5%65.1%10
High-priority, coded referral numerator1,512100%77.4%76.6%10
Reachable achievement points60 of 60

Four sit at 100 percent for one reason: Southmoor bills all four sites through one clearing house, so a criterion evidenced from the claim is visible at the uninterfaced site too. Only the record system is missing there, not the claim. That single distinction decided half the set.

The uncomfortable part

Not one of these is a measure Southmoor performs best on. The screening measure they run at 96.8 percent is topped out and its ceiling is 7. The measure they run at 65.5 percent has a ceiling of 10. Where each lands inside its range is decided by the published benchmark and this pack does not guess at it. The ceiling is not a guess.

New structured fields0New interruptions per visit0
Widest care-to-evidence gap0.8 pointsTwo measures needing the record, margin above the cliff5.9 points

That 5.9 is what the monthly watch exists for. A margin narrowing half a point a quarter has a date on which it crosses, and crossing it costs the whole measure.

Edit with AI

What's in the pack

01

Measure Register

One row per measure carrying every criterion traced to the field, claim element or interface that evidences it, the all-payer denominator, both rates, the completeness margin and the points ceiling. Everything else reads it.

02

Measure Selection Rationale

Why these measures and not others, with the step that removed each rejected one and the number behind it. Includes the section nobody writes and everybody needs in November: the strong performers deliberately left out. If the CAHPS for MIPS Survey is one of the six, its own comments and scores get a different kind of read once results arrive.

03

Data Capture Procedure

Where each criterion is evidenced, by whom, at what moment, and whether it survives extraction. Coverage is recorded per location, because a criterion on the claim is often visible where the same field in the record is not. Where the missing element sits in the note rather than in a field, a clinical documentation gap review counts it by element instead.

04

Gap List

Every instance that will not score, split by which failure it is rather than by patient. For the outreach version of this list once the period is running, a care gap and population report builds it from the panel.

05

Performance Tracking

Completeness margin, direction of travel and the likely cause, kept apart from the performance rate. One decides whether the measure scores and the other decides what it scores, and ranking them together hides the urgent one. Once a reconciliation statement arrives, a value-based contract performance review reads the same numbers against what the arrangement pays.

06

Submission Note

What was sent, from which extract, against which specification version. Records where the submitted population is smaller than the eligible one and why, which is the paragraph a later question is always about. Its attestation block wants dates rather than documents, including those behind the annual security risk analysis. Where one of the six measures is collected through a qualified registry rather than direct EHR extraction, a clinical registry data submission pack keeps that registry's own required-field specification version-stamped so its rules cannot drift out from under the submission.

07

Completeness Margin and Measure Watch

A monthly pass that leads with the distance to the threshold rather than the rate, and names the cause of each movement from a fixed list including an interface that quietly stopped populating a discrete field.

How to use it

  1. 1

    Open in River, or download it

    Open the pack in River and let the agent screen your real candidate list, or download the blank Word and CSV files instantly and work through them yourself.

  2. 2

    Build the denominator you have never built

    All payers, all locations, including the ones your submission cannot see. Those patients count whether or not anybody can produce a status for them.

  3. 3

    Compute both rates and report the gap

    What was done, and what can be extracted. The second is what scores, and the difference between them is knowable before the period starts.

  4. 4

    Screen first, then choose

    Completeness, then the two rates, then caps, then case volume. Clinical judgement comes last and gets a shorter list to work from.

Frequently asked questions

Is this template free?

Yes. Download the whole pack as Word documents and CSV sheets with no credit card. "Edit with AI" is a separate, optional path for practices that want the agent to screen their real candidate list against their own data. Other packs are in the template library.

What format are the downloaded files?

Word documents (.docx) for the selection rationale, the capture procedure and the submission note, and CSV (.csv) for the three sheets, zipped into one file. They open natively in Word, Pages, Google Docs, Excel, Numbers and Sheets.

Why is a measure we perform well on a bad choice?

Because measures become topped out when most reporters score highly, and one topped out for two consecutive years is capped at seven achievement points. Southmoor's 96.8 percent screening measure has a ceiling of 7. A measure they run at 65.5 percent has a ceiling of 10.

We track completeness already. What is different here?

The denominator. Completeness counts every patient meeting the criteria regardless of payer, and most practices watch the Medicare slice. Southmoor's adolescent measure read 91 percent on Medicare and 63.7 percent across all payers. Only the second number decides anything.

Can we just submit the instances we can evidence?

No, and it is the one thing the pack refuses outright. Leaving out part of the eligible population, or submitting only favourable data, is cherry-picking. The three honest answers are to select a different measure, change the capture location going forward, or report the rate as it stands.

How much of the final score is actually at stake?

Quality is 30 percent of the final score. Southmoor's original six capped the category at 56.7, which is 17 of a possible 30 points. The reselected six left all 30 reachable. That 13-point difference was decided in January, not in December.

Does this replace the measure specifications?

No. Every register row records which version it was read from and the date, and where the pack and the published specification disagree the specification governs. Specifications change annually and the denominator exclusions change most, which is why an unversioned row is treated as unverified.

Sources

  1. eCFR42 CFR 414.1340 — Data completeness criteria for the quality performance category (opens in a new tab)
  2. eCFR42 CFR 414.1380 — Scoring (opens in a new tab)
  3. eCFR42 CFR 414.1330 — Quality performance category (opens in a new tab)

Written by

Chandler Supple

Co-founder & CEO, River

Chandler has spent the last six years working in AI, building tools for millions of users and Fortune 100 companies. In 2025, he co-founded River to build a new kind of operating system for AI agents.

LinkedInGitHubX

Reviewed by

Brian Joseff, Co-founder, River

LinkedInX

Related workspaces

Care gap report with an outreach list

For working the open gaps once the measures are chosen and the period is running.

Value-based care contract performance review

For what the performance was worth once a reconciliation statement arrives.

HIPAA security risk assessment template

For the annual security risk analysis the interoperability category asks you to attest to.

More free templates

Clinical Quality Improvement Project Pack

Freezes a 12-week baseline median before testing a change, then checks each new point against it with the four run-chart rules, not a slope.

Clinical Registry Data Submission Pack

Checks records against the registry's required-field spec before submission, not after rejection, catching a Clean wound class NHSN excludes for colon surgery

Clinical Trial Site Regulatory Binder Pack

Tracks each essential document's version and expiry date, and flags the IRB continuing review 45 days before it lapses, not after a monitor finds it.

Patient Satisfaction Survey Analysis Pack

Cross-references comment themes against the patients who scored your lowest dimension worst, not against everyone who left one, before ranking by count.

Choose the measures your record can already prove

Download the blank pack as Word and CSV files, or open this exact pack in River and let the agent trace every criterion to the place in your systems that evidences it.

Edit with AI