Skip to content
FonteumPublic-records evidence
Fonteum Data GlossaryRegulatory

QPP: Definition and Healthcare Context

Full name: Quality Payment Program

The Quality Payment Program (QPP) is a CMS framework established by MACRA that replaced the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula for Medicare clinician reimbursement. QPP offers two participation pathways: MIPS (Merit-Based Incentive Payment System) and Advanced Alternative Payment Models (APMs). Eligible clinicians choose a pathway based on practice size, specialty, and patient volume. QPP ties Medicare payment rates to quality and value metrics. CMS publishes individual and group QPP performance scores as public data accessible through qpp.cms.gov.

Source file
Not reported
Published
Not reported
Retrieved
Not reported
Snapshot
Not retained for this reference page
Data as of
Not reported
Last updated: 2026-07-11Reviewed by: Dr. Jennifer Montecillo, MDGullas College of Medicine, 2019. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

How it’s used

  • CMS QPP MIPS: QPP individual performance data is ingested by Fonteum to surface MIPS scores on provider profiles, keyed by NPI.
  • MACRA statutory authority: QPP was established by MACRA (Pub. L. 114-10), which Fonteum cites as the legal basis for the MIPS performance data shown on provider profiles.
  • CMS QPP Experience Reports: CMS publishes annual QPP participation and performance statistics that contextualize the individual MIPS scores Fonteum surfaces.

Frequently asked questions

What is the QPP?
The Quality Payment Program (QPP) is CMS's framework for tying Medicare clinician payment to quality and value metrics, established by MACRA. It offers MIPS and Advanced APM pathways.
What are the two QPP pathways?
MIPS (Merit-Based Incentive Payment System) for most eligible clinicians, and Advanced APMs for providers in qualifying alternative payment arrangements.
Is QPP participation required?
Eligible clinicians above QPP volume thresholds are automatically subject to MIPS payment adjustments. Participation in data reporting is technically optional, but non-reporters receive the maximum negative payment adjustment.

What’s on file, by the numbers

Platform snapshot · 2026-08-30

13.4Mproviders & companiesProviders, organizations, owners, and facilities on file
26.2Msource-linked factsSource-linked field facts in the dated platform snapshot
90sources with dataDistinct snapshot source IDs with at least one positive record count
16fresh sourcesDistinct source IDs whose latest positive-data snapshot falls within the preceding 45 days
111sources integratedActive registry rows; integration does not establish a load
13state Medicaid jurisdictionsDistinct states represented in the state-exclusions serving table

Integrated, with-data, and fresh-observation counts are separate. No platform-wide source-completeness count is published. Completeness is source-specific and must be evaluated against the named source's expected scope. State coverage is a separate jurisdiction measure.

Source authority is record-specific

Use the issuer named on the record.

Fonteum spans federal, state, and global public publishers. A source page or returned record identifies its issuer and dataset where that metadata is available. A platform registry count does not assign every page to one authority or establish loaded, fresh, or complete coverage.

Browse source records and their stated limitations →

Reproducible by design

Inspect the evidence each published figure actually supplies.

Source and date

Research pages expose the named public file and observation date where those fields are available. Source-file SHA-256 coverage is separate; facts do not currently link deterministically to signatures.

Available derivation

Studies with a retained release and committed derivation link the SQL or method used. Other studies state the evidence and reproduction limits they actually have.

Daily observations

Dated table row-count observations can detect local drift. They do not imply that an upstream publisher released or Fonteum ingested new data that day.

Named medical review

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

Read the full provenance and attestation methodology →

Request access