Ethical Issues in Physician Billing Under Fee-For-Service Plans.

Medical ethics has become an important and recognized component of physician training. There is one area, however, in which medical students receive little guidance. There is practically no discussion of the financial aspects of medical practice. My objective in this paper is to initiate a discussion about the moral dimension of physician billing practices. I argue that physicians should expand their conception of professional responsibility in order to recognize that their moral obligations toward patients include a commitment to honest and forthright billing practices. I argue that physicians should aspire to a standard of clinical accuracy-not legal adequacy-in describing their activities. More generally, physicians should strive to promote an integrity-based professional culture, first and foremost by stigmatizing rather than celebrating creative billing practices, as well as condemning the misguided sense of solidarity that currently makes it taboo for physicians to criticize each other on this score.

Institutions for health care price setting and regulation: A comparative review of eight settings.

BACKGROUND: Price setting and regulation serve as instruments to control volumes of services, while providing incentives for quality, coverage, and efficiency. In recognition of its complexity, many countries have established specific entities to carry out price setting and regulation. METHODS: The aim of the study is to investigate institutions established for health care price setting and regulation and determine how countries have implemented pricing strategies. Eight settings were selected for case studies: Australia, England, France, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Thailand, and Maryland in the United States. Each identified the agency responsible, their role and function, and resources for implementation. RESULTS: In England, Japan, Korea, and Thailand, government entities conduct price setting and regulation. In Australia, France, Germany, and Maryland, independent entities were established. Their responsibilities include costing health services, establishing prices, negotiating with stakeholders, and publishing price and quality data for consumers. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated institutions have been established to carry out costing, price setting, and negotiation, and providing consumer information. Characteristics of successful systems include formal systems of communication with stakeholders, freedom from conflicts of interest, and the mandate to provide public information. Substantial investments in price regulatory systems have been made to attain coverage, quality, and efficiency.

Billing, Coding, and Credentialing for Interventional Radiology-Operated Endoscopy.

A sound understanding of billing and coding is essential to start a successful interventional radiology endoscopy practice. While the codes utilized are similar to gastrointestinal and genitourinary endoscopy codes, physicians and institutional coders need to be familiar with the codes used for these types of procedures in the interventional radiology setting. The following manuscript gives a brief overview of aspects relating to credentialing, billing, and coding in interventional radiology endoscopy.

For Now, Public Unions Can Continue to Collect Fees from Nonmembers.

A four-four Supreme Court decision may lead to a rehearing.

The correlation of family physician work with submitted codes and fees.

OBJECTIVES: The income disparity between primary care and other physicians has been attributed in part to the evaluation and management (E/M) rules written by CMS. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between family physicians' work and their actual coding practices and fees collected under these widely used rules. STUDY DESIGN: This was a direct observational time-motion study. METHODS: A diverse group of 15 family physicians were shadowed over consecutive patient visits at their ambulatory practices, usually for a half-day of clinic. Data about each visit were recorded, including time parameters; number of issues covered; number of labs, images, and chronic prescriptions ordered; the physician fee code from the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) system that was submitted; the actual payer for each patient; and the actual fee collected. The primary outcome was the correlation between the time spent for each patient's care and coding/financial measures. RESULTS: The average total time a physician spent per patient including documentation time was 20.0 minutes. The average fee collected was $101.40, including patient co-pays. The correlation between the actual fee collected and the physician's time spent working on each patient's behalf was poor (R2 = 0.137, P < .001). There was a wide variation in times and fees for each CPT code category. CONCLUSIONS: The existing E/M rules and CPT coding system have created office visit fees that correlate poorly with family physician work. These findings provide another justification for disruptive primary care payment reform.

Completeness assessment of type II active pharmaceutical ingredient drug master files under generic drug user fee amendment: review metrics and common incomplete items.

Under the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA) of 2012, Type II active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) drug master files (DMFs) must pay a user fee and pass a Completeness Assessment (CA) before they can be referenced in an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), ANDA amendment, or ANDA prior approval supplement (PAS). During the first year of GDUFA implementation, from October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013, approximately 1,500 Type II API DMFs received at least one cycle of CA review and more than 1,100 Type II DMFs were deemed complete and published on FDA's "Available for Reference List". The data from CA reviews were analyzed for factors that influenced the CA review process and metrics, as well as the areas of DMF submissions which most frequently led to an incomplete CA status. The metrics analysis revealed that electronic DMFs appear to improve the completeness of submission and shorten both the review and response times. Utilizing the CA checklist to compile and proactively update the DMFs improves the chance for the DMFs to pass the CA in the first cycle. However, given that the majority of DMFs require at least two cycles of CA before being deemed complete, it is recommended that DMF fees are paid 6 months in advance of the ANDA submissions in order to avoid negatively impacting the filling status of the ANDAs.

Shining the light on physician-pharmaceutical and medical device industry financial relationships.

Long subject to legal scrutiny under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, financial ties between physicians and drug manufacturers have recently come under additional pressure as a result of recently enacted state and federal disclosure laws and state gift restrictions, the latest coming in connection with the Federal Health Reform Law. These "sunshine" laws have been motivated by the concern that gifts and payments by manufacturers to physicians may lead to conflicts of interest and improperly influence physicians in their drug- or device-prescribing decisions. As a backdrop to these new laws, it is helpful to review prior guidance regarding manufacturer-physician financial relationships, both from the federal government and the industry itself. These laws do not prohibit physician involvement with industry in research and education, but they impose various new compliance requirements on these relationships, and also in many cases, require public disclosure of arrangements that previously were treated as confidential. It is still too early to tell if these laws will stifle innovation, but they do require a heightened degree of diligence to avoid, at a minimum, adverse publicity and embarrassment and, at worst, criminal and civil liability.

Eliminating drug price differentials across government programmes in the USA.

Federal agencies in the USA pay significantly different prices for the same prescription drugs because each agency uses a different approach to derive the payment rate. Because we do not identify any economic rationale or socially accepted moral reasoning that would justify the current level of price variation, we suggest that the federal government should pay a uniform price for each drug. Laws and regulations that give certain federal agencies the ability to earn rebates, use formularies, or permit other special arrangements would need to be eliminated in order to have a single payment rate. This could make some government agencies worse off than others; however, a uniform payment rate would not need to affect beneficiaries' current financial contributions, access to drugs, benefits or overall public expenditures. At the same time, having a single rate would permit the government to adopt a more effective approach to purchasing drugs and send a consistent message to pharmaceutical companies concerning which types of drugs the government wants them to develop for government beneficiaries. How this single price would be derived and how it would compare with the lowest or highest prices currently achieved by government agencies would depend on a variety of policy issues including the government's desire to encourage pharmaceutical research and development and the need to control health care spending.