ACI score is being reweighed to 0% whereas i have inserted values in it.

97 views
Skip to first unread message

Theresa Rangel

unread,
Jan 12, 2018, 2:34:32 AM1/12/18
to Developer Group for QPP APIs
If anyone can please shed some light as to why it is doing so.

Attached is the request and the response.
Request_to_api.txt
Response_of_api.txt

adams...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 14, 2018, 3:34:26 PM1/14/18
to Developer Group for QPP APIs
The provider / groups aci category has been reweighted to 0. Probably is automatic reweight. I didnt have the npi in your file, if i were you id start by checking NPI on qpp.cms.gov to make sure it is not exempt from aci.

If it is not, then someone applied for an aci exclusion.

Message has been deleted

steven....@semanticbits.com

unread,
Jan 15, 2018, 8:36:36 AM1/15/18
to Developer Group for QPP APIs
Good Morning,

Please refer to here for the sandbox reweighting rules: https://cmsgov.github.io/qpp-submissions-docs/provider-profile. Let me add, if you are exempt and report ACI, your exemption will be discarded and you will be scored on any data that is submitted.

Theresa Rangel

unread,
Jan 17, 2018, 1:57:07 AM1/17/18
to Developer Group for QPP APIs
Hi,
There was no exemption asked for. Yes we are following that TIN rule. But when i put in the 7th,8th and 9th position 234 it reweighs directly.

The 7th, 8th and 9th positions corresponds to the attribution of various provider characteristics.
  • A "2" in positions 7, 8 or 9 indicates the provider is part of a small practice
  • 3: Is part of a rural practice
  • 4: Is in a shortage area

Theresa Rangel

unread,
Jan 22, 2018, 12:46:29 AM1/22/18
to Developer Group for QPP APIs
Hi, can anyone please help in this issue??

Steven Szeliga

unread,
Jan 22, 2018, 4:22:31 PM1/22/18
to Theresa Rangel, Developer Group for QPP APIs
Hey Theresa,

This should be fixed with version 0.29.2 of the scoring engine. We are in the process of integrating eligibility data within the scoring engine to ensure correct scoring. This fix is now available in the sandbox, please let me know if you have any additional questions. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Developer Group for QPP APIs" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/qpp-apis/TDGwaKITMHI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to qpp-apis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/qpp-apis.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qpp-apis/105c583d-7ace-41f8-9d5f-90433f7c09a6%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Thanks,

Steven

Theresa Rangel

unread,
Jan 23, 2018, 2:03:46 AM1/23/18
to Developer Group for QPP APIs
Thank you so much! 
Regarding questions, most essentially i would like to know if there is some way of knowing what changes are implemented? Because it gets a little confusing sometimes, suddenly it changes and we are trying to figure out what changed!

P.S. I know this is not really a relevant question, but really would like to know if possible.


On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 2:22:31 AM UTC+5, Steven Szeliga wrote:
Hey Theresa,

This should be fixed with version 0.29.2 of the scoring engine. We are in the process of integrating eligibility data within the scoring engine to ensure correct scoring. This fix is now available in the sandbox, please let me know if you have any additional questions. 
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Theresa Rangel <rangel...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, can anyone please help in this issue??

On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 11:57:07 AM UTC+5, Theresa Rangel wrote:
Hi,
There was no exemption asked for. Yes we are following that TIN rule. But when i put in the 7th,8th and 9th position 234 it reweighs directly.

The 7th, 8th and 9th positions corresponds to the attribution of various provider characteristics.
  • A "2" in positions 7, 8 or 9 indicates the provider is part of a small practice
  • 3: Is part of a rural practice
  • 4: Is in a shortage area
On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 6:36:36 PM UTC+5, steven....@semanticbits.com wrote:
Good Morning,

Please refer to here for the sandbox reweighting rules: https://cmsgov.github.io/qpp-submissions-docs/provider-profile. Let me add, if you are exempt and report ACI, your exemption will be discarded and you will be scored on any data that is submitted.

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 2:34:32 AM UTC-5, Theresa Rangel wrote:
If anyone can please shed some light as to why it is doing so.

Attached is the request and the response.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Developer Group for QPP APIs" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/qpp-apis/TDGwaKITMHI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to qpp-apis+u...@googlegroups.com.



--
Thanks,

Steven
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages