Seven Compatible Registries Do Not Mean Seven Equivalent Choices
ModMed EMA practices now face a consequential MIPS reporting decision.
CMS terminated ModMed’s status as a Qualified Registry. According to ModMed, the termination will affect MIPS Quality submissions beginning with the 2027 performance period.
That does not mean practices should abandon their 2026 reporting work.
ModMed has stated that customers can continue using the ModMed Registry to submit MIPS Quality data for the performance year ending December 31, 2026. That support extends through the 2027 submission window for 2026 performance data.
In other words, the current reporting year still has to finish. The registry transition applies to the following year.
Starting January 1, 2027, ModMed practices must use a third-party registry for the Quality performance category. ModMed currently identifies seven registries with supported interfaces:
Healthmonix, for all specialties
Patient360, for all specialties
DataDerm, for dermatology
IRIS Registry, for ophthalmology
Reg-ent, for otolaryngology
AQUA Registry, for urology
RegistryClearinghouse, for podiatry
That list gives practices a starting point. It does not make the decision simple.
A registry can be technically compatible with EMA and still be operationally wrong for a particular practice. Interface availability answers one question: Can data move between the systems?
It does not answer whether the registry supports the right measures, identifies data problems early, fits the practice’s workflow, provides meaningful guidance, or stands behind the final submission.
Compatibility gets a registry onto the shortlist. Qualification should determine whether it stays there.
First, Separate 2026 Submission From the 2027 Transition
The timing creates two parallel responsibilities.
Practices must continue monitoring and completing their 2026 MIPS reporting obligations. At the same time, they must select and prepare a third-party registry for the 2027 Quality performance period.
Conflating these responsibilities can create unnecessary confusion.
The 2026 questions include:
Are clinicians still documenting the selected MIPS quality measures?
Is the practice reviewing performance and data completeness?
Are exclusions and denominator logic being monitored?
Is the ModMed Registry still prepared to support the final submission?
Who will verify the 2026 submission before sending it?
The 2027 questions are different:
Which third-party registry will receive Quality data?
Does the registry support the practice’s specialty and reporting strategy?
What data can move directly from EMA?
When must onboarding and testing begin?
Who will manage the new vendor relationship?
How will the practice confirm that the new workflow works before performance data begins accumulating?
The registry door may be closing for 2027 Quality reporting, but the 2026 submission is not excused from finishing its shift.
“Compatible” Describes the Connection, Not the Outcome
Technology vendors often use the word “integration” as if it settles the matter. In practice, integrations vary considerably.
One interface may transfer a broad set of structured data. Another may support only certain measures, fields, specialties, or workflows. Some processes may still require manual files, supplemental documentation, data correction, or practice intervention.
Before selecting a registry, ask what “supported interface” means operationally.
The practice should understand:
Which clinical and demographic fields transfer
Which MIPS quality measures the interface supports
How frequently data moves
Whether historical data can be transferred
How rejected or unmatched records are handled
Whether supplemental data must be uploaded separately
Who investigates missing or conflicting data
How the practice confirms that the registry received a complete record
A seamless transfer during a sales demonstration is nice. A complete and defensible submission is better.
1. Start With the Practice’s Reporting Strategy
The practice should not begin by asking which registry has the most attractive portal.
It should begin with its intended reporting strategy.
Identify:
The clinicians or groups that will report
The specialties included
The MIPS quality measures under consideration
Whether the practice plans to report traditional MIPS or an MVP
The data sources required for each measure
The measures currently captured in EMA
The measures that may require information from another system
The performance gaps the practice needs to address during 2027
A registry that supports hundreds of measures may still be a poor fit if it does not support the measures that matter to the practice.
Specialty alignment also deserves scrutiny. A registry designed around a particular specialty may offer more relevant measures and benchmarking, but a multispecialty organization may need broader reporting capabilities.
There is no universal best registry. Only a registry that is more or less appropriate for the organization using it.
2. Compare Measure Support, Not Measure Counts
“Number of supported measures” is an easy marketing statistic. It is not enough for a purchasing decision.
Practices should compare the specific measures each registry can accept through the ModMed interface.
For each proposed measure, ask:
Is the measure supported for the 2027 performance period?
Can the required data be extracted from EMA?
Does the registry calculate the measure from structured data?
Will the practice need to provide supplemental files?
How does the registry identify exclusions and exceptions?
Can the practice see performance before the submission window?
How will measure specifications be updated if CMS changes them?
This analysis is especially important for practices that rely on specialty-specific workflows.
A registry may technically support a measure but require the practice to change documentation habits, add fields, reconcile external data, or do manual work. That does not necessarily make the registry unsuitable. It does make the operational cost part of the decision.
3. Examine Data Validation and Exception Handling
The most valuable registry feature may not be submission. It may be the ability to show the practice what is wrong before submission.
A qualified clinical data registry or Qualified Registry should help the practice identify problems such as:
Missing patients
Unmatched clinicians
Incorrect denominators
Unexpected exclusions
Incomplete documentation
Duplicate records
Invalid identifiers
Delayed data feeds
Differences between the EHR dashboard and registry calculations
Ask each vendor how it handles these conditions.
Will the practice receive a general error message, or will the registry identify the affected patient, clinician, measure, and data field?
How quickly will the vendor investigate discrepancies?
Will the practice have access to a knowledgeable analyst, or will every question begin again with a general support queue?
A registry decision is partly a technology decision. It is also a decision about who will help when the technology behaves like technology.
4. Determine What Performance Visibility Looks Like
Practices should not wait until the 2028 submission window to learn how their 2027 performance year went.
The selected registry should provide enough visibility to support intervention during the performance period.
Ask whether the platform offers:
Clinician-level performance
Group-level performance
Measure-level trends
Data-completeness monitoring
Patient-level gap lists
Benchmark comparisons
Estimated scoring
Exception and exclusion review
Downloadable reports
Alerts when performance or data flow changes
The practice should also ask how frequently the information updates.
A polished dashboard is not particularly helpful if it reflects data from three months ago and no one can explain what is missing.
The purpose of performance reporting is not merely to admire the score. It is to give the practice enough time to improve it.
5. Clarify Responsibility for the Final Submission
One of the most important questions is also one of the least glamorous:
Who does what?
Practices should document responsibility for:
Connecting the registry to EMA
Selecting measures
Validating clinician and group information
Reviewing data completeness
Investigating discrepancies
Approving the final data
Submitting data to CMS
Confirming successful submission
Retaining supporting documentation
Responding to a future audit or targeted review
Do not assume the registry owns every step because it transmits the data.
Some vendors provide submission support but expect the practice to approve all information. Others offer advisory services, measure-selection assistance, or audit support for an additional fee.
The contract should clearly explain responsibilities. The practice’s internal workflow should do the same.
If everyone is “keeping an eye on it,” there is a respectable chance that no one owns it.
6. Review Onboarding, Testing, and Transition Timing
The deadline for choosing a registry should not be confused with the date the practice needs the registry to function.
January 1, 2027, is the beginning of the new performance period. It should not be the beginning of vendor research.
A responsible transition plan should allow time to:
Compare qualified options
Confirm specialty and measure support
Review pricing and contract terms
Assign internal owners
Complete technical onboarding
Test data transfer
Validate clinician and group information
Compare early calculations
Correct workflow or mapping problems
Train the people responsible for ongoing monitoring
Testing matters because a connection can be active but incomplete.
The practice should request evidence that the interface is transferring the fields required for its selected measures. It should also define how the registry and ModMed will divide responsibility when a data problem crosses both platforms.
“Call the other vendor” is not a transition strategy.
7. Calculate the Full Cost of the Choice
Registry pricing deserves more than a comparison of annual subscription fees.
The total cost may include:
Per-clinician charges
Interface or implementation fees
Advisory-service fees
Measure setup
Custom reporting
Supplemental data uploads
Staff training
Audit support
Contract minimums
Early-termination provisions
Internal labor required to manage the process
A lower-priced registry may require more manual work from practice staff. A more expensive option may include services the organization does not need.
Neither price point tells the whole story.
The useful question is: What will it cost the practice to produce a complete, accurate, timely, and defensible submission using this registry?
Build a Registry Qualification Scorecard
Practices should compare the available choices using the same criteria.
A registry qualification scorecard could include:
ModMed interface status
Specialty alignment
Support for intended MIPS quality measures
Traditional MIPS and MVP capabilities
Data-transfer frequency
Data validation
Performance visibility
Patient-level gap reporting
Technical support
MIPS advisory support
Submission responsibilities
Audit assistance
Implementation timeline
Contract flexibility
Total cost
The scoring process should involve more than the person negotiating the contract.
Include representatives from:
Practice leadership
Quality and compliance
Clinical operations
Information technology
Revenue cycle management
Finance
The clinicians whose documentation creates the data
The registry will affect all of them, even if only one person receives the invoice.
What This Change Does Not Affect
ModMed states that the CMS decision does not affect EMA’s Certified Electronic Health Record Technology status.
Practices can continue using EMA to document and track the Promoting Interoperability and Improvement Activities categories. According to ModMed, practices may still submit those categories directly through the Quality Payment Program website.
That distinction matters.
The immediate transition issue concerns the MIPS Quality category beginning with the 2027 performance period. Practices should verify how each performance category will be tracked, reviewed, and submitted under their specific participation arrangement.
The presence of a new Quality registry should not lead the organization to neglect the remaining MIPS categories.
The Decision Is Larger Than a Vendor List
ModMed’s list of supported registry interfaces gives specialty practices a practical starting point. It does not remove the need for due diligence.
Seven compatible registries do not represent seven equivalent choices.
They may differ in specialty alignment, measure support, data validation, reporting visibility, service model, pricing, implementation requirements, and accountability when something goes wrong.
The right decision begins with the practice’s reporting strategy, not the registry’s sales presentation.
Before signing an agreement, determine:
What the practice intends to report
What data the registry can receive from EMA
What work remains manual
How performance will be monitored
Who will resolve discrepancies
Who owns the final submission
What support is available when the numbers do not agree
A compatible registry can receive data.
A qualified choice should help the practice understand, improve, validate, and defend that data.
Book a Registry Qualification Session
Chirpy Bird helps ModMed EMA specialty practices evaluate registry options against their measures, workflows, data requirements, internal resources, and 2027 reporting goals.
We don't start by asking which vendor has the best brochure. We begin by asking what your practice needs the registry to accomplish.
This article is intended for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Registry capabilities, interfaces, measure support, pricing, and CMS requirements may change. Practices should confirm current requirements and vendor capabilities before making a final selection.
