About VBCA: Value-Based Care Advisors
We were running these programs long before we built the firm.
VBCA began in 2020 with a strategic client acquisition and a group of operators already working inside federal value-based care programs: running ACOs, managing MIPS submissions, and reading each year's rule as it landed. The programs kept getting more technical. The tools available to practices didn't keep up.
We couldn't find the tools we needed. So we built them.
What started as internal infrastructure became the platform our CMS-approved MIPS registry (QCDR) and Medicare Shared Savings ACO run on today. Six years in, the client list spans 96 practices in 32 states and the measure library we author has reached CMS's national program. The founding principle hasn't changed: the people who built it are the people clients talk to.
The People
One team writes the measures and builds the platform.
We author quality measures, engage CMS on rulemaking, and build the tools that track and report to CMS, so the people who know what counts are the same ones building the software.
The founding team has authored nearly 20 clinical quality measures. Four are CMS-approved and reportable today, and CMS has invited VBCA to introduce its SGLT2/CKD measure nationally as a clinical quality measure in 2027.
Policy analysis
We read the full Physician Fee Schedule rule every year, proposed and final, and translate it into what changes for each client.
Data engineering
The episode-cost analytics, score modeling, and benchmark tooling are built in-house, on the same methodology CMS uses.
Clinical review
Physician leadership reviews the clinical logic behind measure selection and cost findings before they reach a client.
Submissions
Registry operations carry a clean audit record. Every submission is validated before it goes to CMS.
Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Reinert spent years in hospital medicine and clinical operations before co-founding VBCA—her review keeps the analytics honest about how care actually gets delivered.
Why This Work Matters
When program complexity threatens business viability, it threatens healthcare access.
The burden of these programs falls hardest on the practices least staffed to absorb it, and those practices are often the essential access points of their communities. A practice that misreads the program doesn't just lose revenue; it can close. That conviction, and the four principles that follow from it, are the argument behind everything we build.
Read why we do this work →Our Commitment
When the rules change, someone should speak for the practices living under them.
Every year, CMS proposes changes to reimbursement, MIPS, MVPs, ACO models, and quality measures, then opens a comment period before finalizing them. Most vendors wait for the final rule and build compliance tools around whatever publishes. We respond during the comment period, while the rule can still change.
When a proposed rule would penalize clinicians for something outside their control, or a benchmarking methodology would disadvantage certain specialties, someone needs to explain why that matters, with data and with the operational reality practices face. Through us, the practices we work with have a voice in how CMS policy gets made.
We submit formal comments on proposed rules and push back when a policy creates burdens its authors didn't intend. The people writing healthcare policy should hear from the people delivering care.
Our current read on the rulemaking cycle: what we're watching in the CY2027 proposed rule →
Put a question to the people who built it.
The team described on this page is the team that answers. Send us a question about MIPS, ASM, or your cost position and we'll tell you how we'd approach it.
Ask us directly →