What is the RUC?

Surgical Complexity and Physician Workload in Craniofacial Surgery: Do RVUs Need to be Adjusted?

RVU valuations need to be revisited regularly as procedure complexity and patient care pathways continue to evolve. The NSQIP-P database was queried for craniofacial procedures performed in North America between 2012 and 2019. Multivariate regression was performed to determine correlation coefficients of perioperative variables deemed to reflect procedure severity, including procedure duration, blood transfusion, length of stay, serious adverse events, related readmission, and related reoperation. CPT 21159 Le Fort III with forehead advancement remains the craniofacial procedure with the highest RVUs using our model at 33.93 units. The most underestimated procedure is CPT 42235 Repair of anterior palate, including vomer flap, with a suggested change of +8.27 units, which is a 194% increase from current compensation. Adjusted RVUs based on quantitative and nationally representative perioperative variables that reflect procedure severity might be a better alternative for procedure valuation over current survey methods to determine appropriate insurance compensation.

Current Reimbursement Landscape of Artificial Intelligence

One of the biggest hurdles to widespread adoption of new procedures and technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms is payment and coverage policy. Noninvasive assessment of coronary fractional flow reserve is one AI imaging algorithm that will successfully achieve reimbursement through multiple pathways of CMS payment mechanisms in 2024. CMS is the largest provider of health care in the United States. Understanding how this AI algorithm is paid through the different fee schedules will help to understand the challenges CMS has in paying for new services and innovation in the United States.

Correlation of Relative Value Units With Surgical Complexity and Physician Workload: A Contemporary Nationwide Analysis of Orthopaedic Procedures

INTRODUCTION

Although previous studies have demonstrated inconsistencies between surgeon work and reimbursement, no previous study has calculated expected relative value units (RVUs) based on procedure-specific variables. Our study aimed to evaluate how measures of physician workload and surgical complexity correlate with the work RVUs (wRVUs) assigned to orthopaedic procedures and compare our predicted wRVUs with actual wRVUs.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was used to identify orthopaedic surgeries with the highest procedural volume in 2019. For each Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code, variables related to surgical complexity and postoperative management were retrieved. A multivariable linear regression was conducted, and R2 values were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 229,792 cases from the top 20 CPT codes by frequency in 2019 were identified. Base RVU values ranged from 7.03 mRVUs for arthroscopic meniscectomy to 30.28 mRVUs for revision total hip arthroplasty. A total of 15 (75%) of the projected mRVUs were lower than the actual mRVU of the procedure. For the 5 (25%) procedures with mRVU projections higher than actual values, the largest differences were seen for CPT codes 29,888 (arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament [ACL] repair; difference: 7.81), 22,630 (posterior arthrodesis of the lumbar interbody; difference: 7.75), and 27,487 (revision total knee arthroplasty; difference: 4.04).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrates that current orthopaedic wRVUs do not appropriately compensate for objective measures of overall complexity as it relates to each procedure. Significant undercompensation in projected RVUs was noted for several high-volume orthopaedic procedures including arthroscopic ACL repair and revision total knee arthroplasty.

Who Will Pay for AI?

In 2020, the largest U.S. health care payer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), established payment for artificial intelligence (AI) through two different systems in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) and the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS). Within the MPFS, a new Current Procedural Terminology code was valued for an AI tool for diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy, IDx-RX. In the IPPS, Medicare established a New Technology Add-on Payment for Viz.ai software, an AI algorithm that facilitates diagnosis and treatment of large-vessel occlusion strokes. This article describes reimbursement in these two payment systems and proposes future payment pathways for AI. Keywords: Computer Applications-General (Informatics), Technology Assessment © RSNA, 2021.

Determining the Patient Complexity of Head CT Examinations: Implications for Proper Valuation of a Critical Imaging Service

PURPOSE

The head-computed tomography (CT) exam code was recently identified by policy makers as having a potentially overvalued resource value units (RVU). A critical aspect in determining RVUs is the complexity of patients undergoing the service. This study evaluated the complexity of patients undergoing head-CT.

METHODS

The 2017 Medicare PSPS Master File was used to identify the most common site for performing head-CT examinations. Given the most common location, the 5% Research Identifiable File, was then used to evaluate complexity of patients undergoing head CT on the same day as an emergency department (ED) visit based on the Evaluation & Management (E&M) "level" of these visits (1-least complex to 5-most complex patient) and the ICD-10 diagnosis coding associated with the billed head CT claims.

RESULTS

56.1% of head CT examinations were performed in the ED. Seventy percent of noncontrast exams performed in the ED were ordered in the most complex patient encounters (level 5 E&M visits). The most common ICD-10 code for head-CT without intravenous contrast billed with a level 5 E&M visit was "dizziness and giddiness," and for head-CT without and with intravenous contrast was "headache."

CONCLUSION

Head-CT is not only most frequently ordered in the ED, but also during the most complex ED visits, suggesting that the ICD-10 codes associated with such exams do not appropriately reflects patient complexity. The valuation process should also consider the complexity of associated billed patient encounters, as indicated by E&M visit levels.

Clinical Genomic Profiling of a Diverse Array of Oncology Specimens at a Large Academic Cancer Center: Identification of Targetable Variants and Experience with Reimbursement

Large cancer panels are being increasingly used in the practice of precision medicine to generate genomic profiles of tumors with the goal of identifying targetable variants and guiding eligibility for clinical trials. To facilitate identification of mutations in a broad range of solid and hematological malignancies, a 467-gene oncology panel (Columbia Combined Cancer Panel) was developed in collaboration with pathologists and oncologists and is currently available and in use for clinical diagnostics. Herein, we share our experience with this testing in an academic medical center. Of 255 submitted specimens, which encompassed a diverse range of tumor types, we were able to successfully sequence 92%. The Columbia Combined Cancer Panel assay led to the detection of a targetable variant in 48.7% of cases. However, although we show good clinical performance and diagnostic yield, third-party reimbursement has been poor. Reimbursement from government and third-party payers using the 81455 Current Procedural Terminology code was at 19.4% of billed costs, and 55% of cases were rejected on first submission. Likely contributing factors to this low level of reimbursement are the delays in valuation of the 81455 Current Procedural Terminology code and in establishing national or local coverage determinations. In the absence of additional demonstrations of clinical utility and improved patient outcomes, we expect the reimbursement environment will continue to limit the availability of this testing more broadly.

Diagnostic carotid and cerebral angiography: a historical summary of the evolving changes in coding and reimbursement in a complex procedure family

Carotid and cerebral angiography have been a mainstay of neurointerventional and neuroradiologic practice for years. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) initiatives have compelled the professional societies to bundle component codes under threat of unilateral CMS revision and revaluation. Code bundling usually results in a decrease in the professional Relative Value Unit (RVU) valuation, and thus the MD reimbursement. The year 2013 saw a dramatic revision to the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code set that defines carotid and cerebral procedures. This paper reviews the process that led to that code set being revised and estimates the impact on professional reimbursement. We show the current and previous carotid angiography CPT codes and use clinical examples to assess professional RVU valuation before and after code revision.