Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Country/Region as subject
Language
Publication year range
1.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(1): 1-7, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33017564

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Economic analyses of medical scribes have been limited to individual, specialty-specific clinics. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of additional patient visits various specialties would need to recover the costs of implementing scribes in their practice at 1 year. DESIGN: Modeling study based on 2015 data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Scribe costs were based on literature review and a third-party contractor model. Revenue was calculated from direct visit billing, CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) billing, and data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. DATA SOURCES: 2015 data from CMS and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. TARGET POPULATION: Health care providers. TIME HORIZON: 1 year. PERSPECTIVE: Office-based clinic. OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of additional patient visits a physician must have to recover the costs of a scribe program at 1 year. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: An average of 1.34 additional new patient visits per day (295 per year) were required to recover scribe costs (range, 0.89 [cardiology] to 1.80 [orthopedic surgery] new patient visits per day). For returning patients, an average of 2.15 additional visits per day (472 per year) were required (range, 1.65 [cardiology] to 2.78 [orthopedic surgery] returning visits per day). The addition of 2 new patient (or 3 returning) visits per day was profitable for all specialties. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were not sensitive to most inputs, with the exception of hourly scribe cost and inclusion of CPT revenue. LIMITATION: Use of Medicare data and failure to account for indirect costs, downstream revenue, or changes in documentation quality. CONCLUSION: For all specialties, modest increases in productivity due to scribes may allow physicians to see more patients and offset scribe costs, making scribe programs revenue-neutral. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: University of Chicago Medicine's Center for Healthcare Delivery Science and Innovation and the Bucksbaum Institute.


Subject(s)
Physicians/economics , Primary Health Care/economics , Program Evaluation , Costs and Cost Analysis , Documentation , Efficiency , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Prospective Studies , United States
2.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(8): e2229504, 2022 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36044213

ABSTRACT

Importance: Time-based billing options for physicians have expanded, enabling many physicians to bill according to time spent instead of medical decision-making (MDM) level for fee-for-service outpatient visits. However, no study to date has estimated the revenue changes associated with time-based billing. Objective: To compare evaluation and management (E/M) reimbursement for physicians using time-based billing vs MDM-based billing for outpatient visits of varying lengths. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used 2019 billing data for outpatient E/M codes and 2021 reimbursement rates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Modeling of generic clinic templates was performed to estimate expected yearly E/M revenues for a single full-time physician working in an outpatient clinic using fee-for-service billing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Yearly E/M revenues for different patient visit templates were modeled. The standardized length of return patient visits was 10 to 45 minutes, and new patient visits were twice as long in duration. Results: Under MDM-based billing, increased visit length was associated with decreased E/M revenue ($564 188 for 30-minute new patient visit/15-minute return patient visit vs $423 137 for 40-minute new patient visit/20-minute return patient visit). Under time-based billing, yearly E/M revenue remained similar across increasing visit lengths ($400 432 for 30-minute new patient visit/15-minute return patient visit vs $458 718 for 40-minute new patient visit/20-minute return patient visit). Compared with time-based billing, MDM-based billing was associated with higher E/M revenue for 10- to 15-minute return patient visits ($400 432 vs $564 188). Time-based billing was associated with higher E/M revenue for return patient visits lasting 20 minutes or longer. The highest modeled E/M revenue of $846 273 occurred for 10-minute return patient visits under MDM-based billing. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study showed that the relative economic benefits of MDM-based billing and time-based billing differed and were associated with the length of patient visits. Physicians with longer patient visits were more likely to experience revenue increases from using time-based billing than physicians with shorter patient visits.


Subject(s)
Outpatients , Physicians , Aged , Ambulatory Care Facilities , Fee-for-Service Plans , Humans , Medicare , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL