Validating CPT Typical Times for Medicare Office Evaluation and Management (E/M) Services

Distribution and Correlates of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and ACT-Like Programs: Results From the 2015 N-MHSS

OBJECTIVE

The study examined the availability and characteristics of assertive community treatment (ACT) programs across mental health treatment facilities in the United States.

METHODS

Prevalence and correlates of facilities that reported offering ACT, broadly defined as intensive community services for serious mental illness provided by multidisciplinary teams in the clients' natural settings and including both ACT and "ACT-like" programs, were examined by using data from the National Mental Health Services Survey. Availability of services essential to the ACT model in these facilities was also examined.

RESULTS

Of the 12,826 surveyed facilities, 13.4% reported offering ACT, with significant variability among states. Of the facilities with ACT, 19.2% reported offering all core ACT services. Few facilities offered peer support, employment, and housing services. Compared with programs at facilities that did not offer all core ACT services, facilities with ACT programs that offered these services had higher odds of being publicly owned (odds ratio [OR]=2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.64-2.74) and of receiving federal (OR=3.60, CI=2.17-5.98) or grant funding (OR=1.87, CI=1.45-2.41). Facilities with ACT that offered all core services also had higher odds of offering other services important to individuals with serious mental disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial differences existed in availability of ACT and ACT-like programs among states, with evidence of a large unmet need overall, even when a very broad and inclusive definition of ACT was used. Few ACT programs offered all core services. Legislative, administrative, and funding differences may explain some of the variability.

Cost-effectiveness of the non-laboratory based Framingham algorithm in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A simulated analysis of a cohort of African American adults

The non-lab Framingham algorithm, which substitute body mass index for lipids in the laboratory based (lab-based) Framingham algorithm, has been validated among African Americans (AAs). However, its cost-effectiveness and economic tradeoffs have not been evaluated. This study examines the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of two cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention programs guided by the non-lab versus lab-based Framingham algorithm. We simulated the World Health Organization CVD prevention guidelines on a cohort of 2690 AA participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort. Costs were estimated using Medicare fee schedules (diagnostic tests, drugs & visits), Bureau of Labor Statistics (RN wages), and estimates for managing incident CVD events. Outcomes were assumed to be true positive cases detected at a data driven treatment threshold. Both algorithms had the best balance of sensitivity/specificity at the moderate risk threshold (>10% risk). Over 12years, 82% and 77% of 401 incident CVD events were accurately predicted via the non-lab and lab-based Framingham algorithms, respectively. There were 20 fewer false negative cases in the non-lab approach translating into over $900,000 in savings over 12years. The ICER was -$57,153 for every extra CVD event prevented when using the non-lab algorithm. The approach guided by the non-lab Framingham strategy dominated the lab-based approach with respect to both costs and predictive ability. Consequently, the non-lab Framingham algorithm could potentially provide a highly effective screening tool at lower cost to address the high burden of CVD especially among AA and in resource-constrained settings where lab tests are unavailable.

Estimating Surgical Procedure Times Using Anesthesia Billing Data and Operating Room Records

OBJECTIVE

The median time required to perform a surgical procedure is important in determining payment under Medicare's physician fee schedule. Prior studies have demonstrated that the current methodology of using physician surveys to determine surgical times results in overstated times. To measure surgical times more accurately, we developed and validated a methodology using available data from anesthesia billing data and operating room (OR) records.

DATA SOURCES

We estimated surgical times using Medicare 2011 anesthesia claims and New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System 2011 OR times. Estimated times were validated using data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. We compared our time estimates to those used by Medicare in the fee schedule.

STUDY DESIGN

We estimate surgical times via piecewise linear median regression models.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Using 3.0 million observations of anesthesia and OR times, we estimated surgical time for 921 procedures. Correlation between these time estimates and directly measured surgical time from the validation database was 0.98. Our estimates of surgical time were shorter than the Medicare fee schedule estimates for 78 percent of procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia and OR times can be used to measure surgical time and thereby improve the payment for surgical procedures in the Medicare fee schedule.

Medicare Part B Intensity and Volume Offset

Under Medicare Part B, adjustments to the fee schedule are made under the assumption that physicians and hospitals make up for fee reductions through increased service provision called 'volume offsetting'. While historically, researchers have found evidence of volume offsetting, more recent studies have called into question its magnitude and existence. This study is the first to propose and empirically evaluate an alternative hypothesis of offsetting, namely the alteration of billed or provided services as a means of 'intensity offsetting'. Evaluating both forms of offsetting, it finds strong evidence of intensity offsetting and little to no evidence of volume offsetting. Simulating a 10% reduction in the Medicare fee schedule, this study estimates that across different procedures between 22% and 59% of a fee reduction will be offset through alterations in service intensity.

The resource-based relative value scale and physician reimbursement policy

Most physicians are unfamiliar with the details of the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS) and how changes in the RBRVS influence Medicare and private reimbursement rates. Physicians in a wide variety of settings may benefit from understanding the RBRVS, including physicians who are employees, because many organizations use relative value units as productivity measures. Despite the complexity of the RBRVS, its logic and ideal are simple: In theory, the resource usage (comprising physician work, practice expense, and liability insurance premium costs) for one service is relative to the resource usage of all others. Ensuring relativity when new services are introduced or existing services are changed is, therefore, critical. Since the inception of the RBRVS, the American Medical Association's Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) has made recommendations to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on changes to relative value units. The RUC's core focus is to develop estimates of physician work, but work estimates also partly determine practice expense payments. Critics have attributed various health-care system problems, including declining and growing gaps between primary care and specialist incomes, to the RUC's role in the RBRVS update process. There are persistent concerns regarding the quality of data used in the process and the potential for services to be overvalued. The Affordable Care Act addresses some of these concerns by increasing payments to primary care physicians, requiring reevaluation of the data underlying work relative value units, and reviewing misvalued codes.

CPT fee differentials and visit upcoding under Medicare Part B

Medicare Part B pays outpatient physicians according to the billed Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, which differ in procedure and intensity. Since many performed services merely differ by intensity, physicians have an incentive to upcode services to increase profitability of a visit. Using nationally representative data from the 2001 to 2003 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, this paper explores the effect of Medicare Part B fee differentials on the upcoding of general office visits (i.e. for established patient visits with CPT codes of 99212-99215). It finds strong evidence that these fee differentials influence physician's coding choice for billing purposes across a variety of specialties. For general office visits, Medicare outlays attributable to upcoding may sum to as much as 15% of total expenditures for such visits. Medicare has much to gain financially by clarifying its classification rules. Until the distinctions between types of Medicare visits are redefined in a way that eliminates ambiguity, upcoding under Medicare Part B is likely to continue.

Importance of health system context for evaluating utilization patterns across systems

Measuring health services provided to patients can be difficult when patients see providers across multiple health systems and all visits are rarely captured in a single data source covering all systems where patients receive care. Studies that account for only one system will omit the out-of-system health-care use at the patient level. Combining data across systems and comparing utilization patterns across health systems creates complications for both aggregation and accuracy because data-generating processes (DGPs) tend to vary across systems. We develop a hybrid methodology for aggregation across systems, drawing on the strengths of the DGP in each system, and demonstrate its validity for answering research questions requiring cross-system assessments of health-care utilization. Positive and negative predictive probabilities can be useful to assess the impact of the hybrid methodology. We illustrate these issues comparing public sector (administrative records from the US Department of Veterans Affairs system) and private sector (billing records from the US Medicare system) patient level data to identify primary-care utilization. Understanding the context of a particular health system and its effect on the DGP is important in conducting effective valid evaluations.

Missing Productivity Gains in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule: Where Are They?

The Medicare Fee Schedule with payments for thousands of visits and procedures is updated periodically for the work component of changes in physician relative work. Three 5-year reviews of physician work by Medicare have been biased against finding productivity gains and reductions in physician work relative values. The authors present four studies showing shorter physician times with patients in their offices and in the operating room, increases in surgeons’ self-reported total work in spite of declining operating room times, and growing numbers of costly handoffs to nonsurgeons, while surgeons receive full payment for postoperative follow-up with patients. Substantial savings exist in the fee schedule if productivity gains from greater delegation to ancillary staff and specialists, reengineering of services, and rapid learning by experience with new technologies were integrated into the periodic reviews.