Drivers of Cost Differences Between Nurse Practitioner and Physician Attributed Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Although recent research suggests that primary care provided by nurse practitioners costs less than primary care provided by physicians, little is known about underlying drivers of these cost differences. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Identify the drivers of cost differences between Medicare beneficiaries attributed to primary care nurse practitioners (PCNPs) and primary care physicians (PCMDs). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cost decomposition analysis using 2009-2010 Medicare administrative claims for beneficiaries attributed to PCNPs and PCMDs with risk stratification to control for beneficiary severity. Cost differences between PCNPs and PCMDs were decomposed into payment, service volume, and service mix within low-risk, moderate-risk and high-risk strata. RESULTS: Overall, the average PCMD cost of care is 34% higher than PCNP care in the low-risk stratum, and 28% and 21% higher in the medium-risk and high-risk stratum. In the low-risk stratum, the difference is comprised of 24% service volume, 6% payment, and 4% service mix. In the high-risk stratum, the difference is composed of 7% service volume, 9% payment, and 4% service mix. The cost difference between PCNP and PCMD attributed beneficiaries is persistent and significant, but narrows as risk increases. Across the strata, PCNPs use fewer and less expensive services than PCMDs. In the low-risk stratum, PCNPs use markedly fewer services than PCMDs. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the costs of primary care of Medicare beneficiaries provided by nurse practitioners and MDs. Especially in low-risk populations, the lower cost of PCNP provided care is primarily driven by lower service volume.

Measuring Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias in Diverse Populations Using Medicare Claims Data.

We examined how methods used for identifying dementia in administrative claims affected dementia incidence across racial/ethnic populations using a 100% sample of Medicare beneficiaries (n = 23,793,452). We found levels differed by method from 3.1% annual incidence to 3.6% in 2014. Dementia incidence declined from 2007 to 2014, but choice of method differentially impacted levels and trends by race/ethnicity. Methods using codes for dementia diagnosis and drugs to treat symptoms identified proportionally more Hispanics and Asians with dementia than other race/ethnicities, while codes for dementia diagnosis, drugs, and symptoms identified proportionally more whites and American Indians/Alaska Natives with dementia than other race/ethnicities.

Association of the New Peer Group-Stratified Method With the Reclassification of Penalty Status in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program.

Importance: Since the introduction of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), readmission penalties have been applied disproportionately to institutions that serve low-income populations. To address this concern, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid introduced a new, stratified payment adjustment method in fiscal year (FY; October 1 to September 30) 2019. Objective: To determine whether the introduction of a new, stratified payment adjustment method was associated with an alteration in the distribution of penalties among hospitals included in the HRRP. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, US hospitals included in the HRRP for FY 2018 and FY 2019 were identified. Penalty status of participating hospitals for FY 2019 was determined based on nonstratified HRRP methods and the new, stratified payment adjustment method. Hospitals caring for the highest proportion of patients enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid based on quintile were assigned to the low-socioeconomic status (SES) group. Exposures: Nonstratified and stratified Centers for Medicare & Medicaid payment adjustment methods. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net reclassification of penalties among all hospitals and hospitals in the low-SES group, in states participating in Medicaid expansion, and for 4 targeted medical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia). Results: Penalty status by both payment adjustment methods (nonstratified and stratified) was available for 3173 hospitals. For FY 2019, the new, stratified payment method was associated with penalties for 75.04% of hospitals (2381 of 3173), while the old, nonstratified method was associated with penalties for 79.07% (2509 hospitals), resulting in a net down-classification in penalty status for all hospitals by 4.03 percentage points (95% CI, 2.95-5.11; P < .001). For the 634 low-SES hospitals in the sample, the new method was associated with penalties for 77.60% of hospitals (492 of 634), while the old method was associated with penalties for 91.64% (581 hospitals), resulting in a net down-classification in penalty status of 14.04 percentage points (95% CI, 11.18-16.90; P < .001). Among hospitals that were not low SES (quintiles 1-4), the new payment method was associated with a small decrease in penalty status (1928 vs 1889; net down-classification, 1.54 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.38-2.69; P = .01). Among target medical conditions, the greatest reduction in penalties was observed among cardiovascular conditions (net down-classification, 6.18 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.96-7.39; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The new, stratified payment adjustment method for the HRRP was associated with a reduction in penalties across hospitals included in the program; the greatest reductions were observed among hospitals in the low-SES group, lessening but not eliminating the previously unbalanced penalty burden carried by these hospitals. Additional public policy research efforts are needed to achieve equitable payment adjustment models for all hospitals.

Predict the Medicare Functional Classification Level (K-level) using the Amputee Mobility Predictor in people with unilateral transfemoral and transtibial amputation: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: While Amputee Mobility Predictor scores differ between Medicare Functional Classification Levels (K-level), this does not demonstrate that the Amputee Mobility Predictor can accurately predict K-level. OBJECTIVES: To determine how accurately K-level could be predicted using the Amputee Mobility Predictor in combination with patient characteristics for persons with transtibial and transfemoral amputation. STUDY DESIGN: Prediction. METHOD: A cumulative odds ordinal logistic regression was built to determine the effect that the Amputee Mobility Predictor, in combination with patient characteristics, had on the odds of being assigned to a particular K-level in 198 people with transtibial or transfemoral amputation. RESULTS: For people assigned to the K2 or K3 level by their clinician, the Amputee Mobility Predictor predicted the clinician-assigned K-level more than 80% of the time. For people assigned to the K1 or K4 level by their clinician, the prediction of clinician-assigned K-level was less accurate. The odds of being in a higher K-level improved with younger age and transfemoral amputation. CONCLUSION: Ordinal logistic regression can be used to predict the odds of being assigned to a particular K-level using the Amputee Mobility Predictor and patient characteristics. This pilot study highlighted critical method design issues, such as potential predictor variables and sample size requirements for future prospective research. Clinical relevance This pilot study demonstrated that the odds of being assigned a particular K-level could be predicted using the Amputee Mobility Predictor score and patient characteristics. While the model seemed sufficiently accurate to predict clinician assignment to the K2 or K3 level, further work is needed in larger and more representative samples, particularly for people with low (K1) and high (K4) levels of mobility, to be confident in the model's predictive value prior to use in clinical practice.

A multidisciplinary approach to vascular surgery procedure coding improves coding accuracy, work relative value unit assignment, and reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Vascular surgery procedural reimbursement depends on accurate procedural coding and documentation. Despite the critical importance of correct coding, there has been a paucity of research focused on the effect of direct physician involvement. We hypothesize that direct physician involvement in procedural coding will lead to improved coding accuracy, increased work relative value unit (wRVU) assignment, and increased physician reimbursement. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study evaluated procedural coding accuracy of fistulograms at an academic medical institution (January-June 2014). All fistulograms were coded by institutional coders (traditional coding) and by a single vascular surgeon whose codes were verified by two institution coders (multidisciplinary coding). The coding methods were compared, and differences were translated into revenue and wRVUs using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Comparison between traditional and multidisciplinary coding was performed for three discrete study periods: baseline (period 1), after a coding education session for physicians and coders (period 2), and after a coding education session with implementation of an operative dictation template (period 3). The accuracy of surgeon operative dictations during each study period was also assessed. An external validation at a second academic institution was performed during period 1 to assess and compare coding accuracy. RESULTS: During period 1, traditional coding resulted in a 4.4% (P = .004) loss in reimbursement and a 5.4% (P = .01) loss in wRVUs compared with multidisciplinary coding. During period 2, no significant difference was found between traditional and multidisciplinary coding in reimbursement (1.3% loss; P = .24) or wRVUs (1.8% loss; P = .20). During period 3, traditional coding yielded a higher overall reimbursement (1.3% gain; P = .26) than multidisciplinary coding. This increase, however, was due to errors by institution coders, with six inappropriately used codes resulting in a higher overall reimbursement that was subsequently corrected. Assessment of physician documentation showed improvement, with decreased documentation errors at each period (11% vs 3.1% vs 0.6%; P = .02). Overall, between period 1 and period 3, multidisciplinary coding resulted in a significant increase in additional reimbursement ($17.63 per procedure; P = .004) and wRVUs (0.50 per procedure; P = .01). External validation at a second academic institution was performed to assess coding accuracy during period 1. Similar to institution 1, traditional coding revealed an 11% loss in reimbursement ($13,178 vs $14,630; P = .007) and a 12% loss in wRVU (293 vs 329; P = .01) compared with multidisciplinary coding. CONCLUSIONS: Physician involvement in the coding of endovascular procedures leads to improved procedural coding accuracy, increased wRVU assignments, and increased physician reimbursement.

The carbon monoxide diffusing capacity: clinical implications, coding, and documentation.

The test for the diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) has been available for nearly 100 years for research and clinical purposes. The single-breath method is used almost exclusively in the United States It has been available in clinical pulmonary function laboratories for > 50 years. DLCO has great value in evaluating patients with lung diseases. Guidelines to standardize DLCO have been published by the American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society to reduce the interlaboratory variability that has existed. One code, 94720, should be reported for the billing for DLCO. Another code, 94725, the membrane diffusing capacity, exists for the measurement of the membrane and blood components of the DLCO. Currently, no clinical indications exist for the use of the membrane diffusing capacity. The finding that the number of tests in the Medicare population coded with 94725 has increased by > 1,000% from 2000 to 2005 is quite surprising. This rate is 14-times higher than the rate of increase in the utilization of 94720 over the same period. The possible reasons for these increases are discussed, but the most likely explanation is the financial gain derived from coding 94725. It is proposed that coding and billing of 94725 be stopped until the clinical indications for membrane diffusing capacity have been established. Those who code and bill for 94725 must be prepared to justify the use of this code to Medicare and third-party payers.

Coding of glaucoma for patients with uveitis in the medicare database.

PURPOSE: To investigate possible causes for, and implications of, variations in coding of glaucoma for patients with uveitis in the Medicare database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 6,391 patients coded with one of several ICD-9 codes designating a form of uveitis from a 5% sample of the 1999 Medicare database. The proportion of patients with uveitis codes who also had codes for uveitic glaucoma, primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG), or unspecified open-angle glaucoma (OAG) were determined. The proportion with codes for argon laser trabeculoplasty (ALT), trabeculectomy, visual field examinations, fundus photographs, and gonioscopy were calculated in three groups: patients with both uveitis and uveitic glaucoma; those with both uveitis and POAG; and those with both uveitis and unspecified open-angle glaucoma. Summaries of the total allowed reimbursement related to eye visits and to eye codes were determined. RESULTS: Of the 6,391 patients with uveitis who were studied, 1,260 (19.7%) also had the code for POAG; 412 (6.4%) had the code for OAG; and 117 (1.8%) had the code for uveitic glaucoma. Visual field testing was less common among patients with uveitic glaucoma (37%) than among those with POAG/uveitis (46%) or OAG/uveitis (44%) (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in the amount of total reimbursement related to eye services or eye codes. CONCLUSIONS: The code for POAG appears to be used in lieu of uveitic glaucoma in many cases. Discrepancies are probably not influenced by expected reimbursements, as much as by a lack of understanding about the available ICD-9 codes.

Per-patient-per-month drug costs in Medicare Part D protected classes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs of medications in the six Medicare Part D protected classes based on findings among Medicare and dual eligible beneficiaries with drug coverage before the enactment of the benefit. DESIGN: Data were from the Thomson Medstat MarketScan Medicare and Medicaid claims databases. The study sample was constructed by identifying patients who were enrolled either in Medicare or dually in Medicare and Medicaid. PPPM costs were calculated for each protected class. Drugs covered under Part B were excluded. OUTCOMES MEASURE: PPPM aggregated costs within each class. RESULTS: The classes in which generic formulations are available (antidepressants and anticonvulsants) show low PPPM costs ($ US 45.31 and $ US 50.97, respectively). The most expensive class is the antiretrovirals ($ US 829.73). This class is the costliest for all dual eligible patients including those aged 64 years and under. Among the dual eligible aged 65 years and older, the immunosuppressants are the most expensive class. The same result is seen qualitatively in the Medicare group. CONCLUSIONS: PPPM costs are not uniformly high among the protected classes. The claims data in this study allowed a 'real world' check of how much the protected classes may impact the finances of Part D. There are differences within the classes between the dual eligible and Medicare patients, and also within the dual eligible by age. This is an important message to policy makers that a change to the structure of the protected classes in Part D may have differential effects across classes and also within classes.

The Therapeutic Shoe Bill: Medicare coverage for prescription footwear for diabetic patients.

This article describes the extent of coverage and the process of obtaining Medicare coverage for prescription footwear for patients with diabetes and reflects policies in effect as of April 1, 2004.

Government and private insurance medical programs as well as MDVIP, an update.

On November 19,1945, President Truman outlined a Prepaid Medical Insurance Plan for all people through the Social Security System. Because of its comprehensive nature, it was coined "National Health Insurance." On July 30,1965, President Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid bill (Title XVII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act). Today, many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. However, there are strict requirements that may vary from state to state. Medicare offers the following types of medical heath care plans to include the original Medicare plan that is a "fee for service" plan. The individual may stay in the original plan unless he/she chooses to join a Medicare+ Choice Plan or a Medigap Plan. Most individuals will receive Medicare Part A when they are 65 without paying a premium because it has been deducted annually through their tax payments before the age of 65. Medicare Part A helps pay for the following: inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facility, hospice care, and some home health care. Medicare Part B, however, must be paid by the individual through premiums to the Federal government. Medicare Part B medical insurance pays for doctors' services, outpatient services, and some other services that Medicare Part A doesn't cover. In an effort to supplement one's health care coverage, the individual may select either a Medicare+ Choice Plan or a Medigap Policy. The Medicare+ Choice Plan has four different types: Medicare Managed Care Plans, Medicare Private Fee for Service Plan, Medicare Preferred Provider Plans, and Medicare Specialty Plans. If one selects a Medigap policy, one may choose either a Medigap SELECT Policy or the standard Medigap policy. The front of a Medigap Policy must clearly identify it as a "Medicare Supplement Insurance." One must be carefully advised of the selection of the Medigap Policy. The Medicare Part B has a wide range of preventative services, including tests for breast cancer, cervical cancer, vaginal cancer, and colorectal cancer; bone mass measurements; diabetes monitoring and diabetes self-management; flu, pneumonia, Hepatitis B shots, and prostate cancer screening tests. It is important to emphasize that Medicare and Medicare supplemental insurance policies do not pay for home health care, such as durable medical equipment. Because of the enormous complexity of the wide variety of health insurance plans and their billing strategies, many physicians are electing to charge their patients an additional fee for being part of their practice. In return for their annual fee, their patients receive immediate cell phone access to their doctor 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In addition, they receive same-day appointments and on-time appointments. They also spend as much time with their doctors as they wish. It is not surprising that there is growing evidence that the privately insured patient with a life-threatening illness will live longer than those individuals who have the same disease but have public insurance only. Legislatures are well aware of this crisis in medical care that must be corrected immediately.

Valuing neurosurgery services: part I. The historical development and interrelationships of current procedural terminology and the medicare fee schedule.

Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) standardizes medical procedure coding for billing and reimbursement. Since adoption of CPT coding as the basis for the Medicare Fee Schedule (MFS) in 1992, CPT coding policies and policy changes have been influenced not only by medical necessity and customary practice, but also increasingly by Medicare payment policies. The MFS created regulatory price control in the United States medical market based on widespread adoption of modified MFS by private payers and benchmark MFS fees governed by federal budget limitations and set annually by government agency (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services).

The demand for Medicare supplemental insurance benefits: the role of attitudes toward medical care and risk.

This paper uses data from the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey to analyze the role that attitudes toward medical care and risk play in Medicare beneficiaries' demand for supplemental insurance. We investigate the factors affecting the demand for any supplemental insurance as well as specific Medigap benefits, such as coverage for Medicare's gaps in hospital and physician services, skilled nursing facility care, and prescription drug purchases. Our results indicate that attitudes significantly influence beneficiaries' decisions to purchase supplemental insurance and specific benefits with effects that are comparable in magnitude to those of self-reported health measures, education, and asset income.

Diagnosis-based risk adjustment for Medicare capitation payments.

Using 1991-92 data for a 5-percent Medicare sample, we develop, estimate, and evaluate risk-adjustment models that utilize diagnostic information from both inpatient and ambulatory claims to adjust payments for aged and disabled Medicare enrollees. Hierarchical coexisting conditions (HCC) models achieve greater explanatory power than diagnostic cost group (DCG) models by taking account of multiple coexisting medical conditions. Prospective models predict average costs of individuals with chronic conditions nearly as well as concurrent models. All models predict medical costs far more accurately than the current health maintenance organization (HMO) payment formula.