Compliance Reporting Automation: Reduce Manual Reporting Burden by 60–75%

Healthcare quality teams spend 40–60% of their time on data collection and report compilation — not on quality improvement activities. A quality director who should be reviewing care protocols, coaching clinical staff, and driving process improvement instead spends the majority of their month pulling data from the EHR, formatting it for regulatory submissions, cross-referencing with payer requirements, and building spreadsheets for compliance review meetings.

The regulatory reporting landscape for a mid-size physician group now includes MIPS, potentially one or more state Medicaid quality programs, two to five payer quality incentive programs, and possibly FQHC UDS or CMS IPPS reporting. Each program has different measure definitions, different denominator logic, and different submission formats. Managing all of them manually is a full-time job that most quality directors are doing in addition to their actual quality work.

Vizier's compliance reporting automation doesn't eliminate the need for a quality director — it eliminates the data compilation work, so the quality director can focus on what the data is telling them and what to do about it.

The automation workflow is straightforward: your team uploads the monthly data export from your EHR, Vizier calculates compliance status for all active reporting programs simultaneously, and generates a compliance report showing performance by program and measure. Measures trending below threshold trigger alerts before the next upload cycle — giving you time to investigate and address the problem.

The compliance dashboard shows every active reporting obligation in one place: MIPS composite score, payer quality program performance, state Medicaid program status, and FQHC UDS measure performance (if applicable). Your quality director sees all programs in one view rather than logging into separate portals for each program.

Submission-ready data exports are formatted for the specific submission requirement of each program. The MIPS export matches the format required by your registry or the CMS Web Interface. The payer quality export matches the payer's specified format. Your team reviews and approves — the compilation and formatting are automated.

The audit trail documentation is often the deliverable that matters most during external review. When a payer questions your quality score or a CMS audit requires documentation of your MIPS measure calculation methodology, the audit trail shows the data source, the calculation date, the measure logic applied, and the output — without requiring your team to reconstruct a paper trail from memory.

The alert system changes the quality team's relationship with compliance reporting. Instead of a monthly scramble to compile data and calculate compliance status, the team receives an alert when something specific requires attention. Most months, the alert count is zero — which means the monthly review is a 30-minute confirmation, not a 15-hour data pull.

Configuration takes four weeks from reporting obligation inventory to first automated monthly report. The complexity variable is the number of active reporting programs — organizations with MIPS plus three payer programs take longer than those reporting only to MIPS. We scope the engagement after the inventory phase.