Unveiling the Hidden Discrepancies Between Medicare Physician Reimbursement Rates and Inflation Across Different Surgical Specialties.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the trends of Medicare physician reimbursement from 2011 to 2021 and compare the rates across different surgical specialties. BACKGROUND: Knowledge of Medicare is essential because of its significant contribution in physician reimbursements. Previous studies across surgical specialties have demonstrated that Medicare, despite keeping up with inflation in some areas, has remained flat when accounting for physician reimbursement. STUDY DESIGN: The Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary data for the calendar year 2021 were queried to extract the top 50% of Current Procedural Terminology codes based on case volume. The Physician Fee Schedule look-up tool was accessed, and the physician reimbursement fee was abstracted. Weighted mean reimbursement was adjusted for inflation. Growth rate and compound annual growth rate were calculated. Projection of future inflation and reimbursement rates were also calculated using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. RESULTS: After adjusting for inflation, the weighted mean reimbursement across surgical specialties decreased by -22.5%. The largest reimbursement decrease was within the field of general surgery (-33.3%), followed by otolaryngology (-31.5%), vascular surgery (-23.3%), and plastic surgery (-22.8%). There was a significant decrease in median case volume across all specialties between 2011 and 2021 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that, when adjusted for inflation, over the study period, there has been a consistent decrease in reimbursement for all specialties analyzed. Awareness of the current downward trends in Medicare physician reimbursement should be a priority for all surgeons, as means of advocating for compensation and to maintain surgical care feasible and accessible to all patients.

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and Unethical Behavior.

This Viewpoint discusses the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and its flaws, including how they might be remedied by severing CMS dependence on Relative Value Update Committee estimates of time and intensity.

Medicare fee reductions and the overuse of intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of a large Medicare fee reduction for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on its use in prostate and breast cancer patients. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: SEER-Medicare. STUDY DESIGN: We compared trends in the use of IMRT between patients treated in practices directly affected by fee reductions (for prostate cancer, men treated in urology practices that own IMRT equipment; for breast cancer, women treated in freestanding radiotherapy clinics) and patients treated in other types of practices. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified breast and prostate cancer patients receiving IMRT using outpatient and physician office claims. We classified urology practices based on whether they billed for IMRT and radiotherapy clinics based on whether they were reimbursed under the Physician Fee Schedule. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Between 2006 and 2015 the payment for IMRT delivered in freestanding clinics and physician offices declined by $367 (-54.7%). However, the use of IMRT increased in physician practices subject to payment cuts, both in absolute terms and relative to use in practices unaffected by the payment cut. Use of IMRT in prostate cancer patients treated at urology practices that own IMRT equipment increased by 9.1 (95% CI: 2.0-16.2) percentage points between 2005 and 2016 relative to use in patients treated at other urology practices. Use of IMRT in breast cancer patients treated at freestanding radiotherapy centers increased by 7.5 (95% CI: -5.1 to 20.1) percentage points relative to use in patients treated at hospital-based centers. CONCLUSIONS: A steep decline in IMRT fees did not decrease IMRT use over the period from 2006 to 2015, though use has declined since 2010.

Pharmaceutical pricing benchmarks: governmental versus private sector.

Purpose: To explore the best pricing benchmark for workers' compensation drugs reimbursement at retail pharmacies. Materials & methods: We used California workers' compensation system (CAWCS) total cost of pharmacy dispensed medications (2017-2019) as a proxy to estimate drug prices using alternative pricing mechanism fee schedules. Results: CAWCS paid 65.6% of the average wholesale price (AWP), 104.1% of Medi-Cal, 122.1% of the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC), 140.1% of the national average drug acquisition cost (NADAC), and 253.5% of the federal upper limit. In addition, we found the AWP-based formulas: CAWCS = AWP - 34.4%, Medi-Cal = AWP - 36.9%, WAC = AWP - 46.3%, NADAC = AWP - 53.2%, and federal upper limit = AWP - 74.1%. We found that AWP: 50% for generics and AWP - 18.2% for brands are the lowest paying formulas. The estimated median cost savings were $8.7 million (by adapting 97% of the WAC) and $9.5 million (by adapting the NADAC) across all states. Conclusion: NADAC was the best pricing benchmark for reimbursement of pharmacy dispensed drugs.

Trends in Orthopedic Surgery Reimbursement From 2000 to 2015.

Understanding trends in reimbursement for orthopedic surgery is important, especially considering the changing landscape of health care delivery and payment models. Although other studies have examined these trends using a sampling of common orthopedic procedures compared with non-orthopedic specialties, robust examination across all orthopedic specialties is not available in the current literature. This study aimed to critically analyze the trends in reimbursement in the field of orthopedic surgery. Inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement and work relative value units (RVUs) between 2000 and 2016 for more than 200 individual Current Procedural Terminology codes across all major orthopedic subspecialties were analyzed, and inherent value of work RVUs was assessed by dividing reimbursement dollar values by work RVUs annually and tracking the changes. Between 2000 and 2016, reimbursement decreased across all orthopedic subspecialties by an average of 29%, except oncology, which showed a 6% increase. Work RVUs increased by an average of 10%, but the inherent value of work RVUs decreased across all orthopedic subspecialties by an average of 39%. Increased active involvement of orthopedic attending physicians and residents in coding documentation and fee-schedule representation is needed. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(3):187-190.].

Right-sizing cardiac CT reimbursement through local and national efforts: A call to action for the imaging community.

The proposed 2020 CMS Physician Fee Schedule (MFPS) and Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) rules issued a reduction in the technical component (TC) payment that would decrease reimbursement for cardiac CT codes by nearly 29% compared to the 2018 final rule. Cardiac CT codes are currently allocated to ambulatory payment classification (APC) 5571, which is used for level I imaging tests with contrast. However, cardiac CT exams utilize more resources and are very different in clinical scope. Current CMS methodology markedly underestimates the actual cost of performing cardiac CT exams. The low reimbursement is a key factor in slowing the adoption of cardiac CT into clinical practice. Grassroot efforts are needed at all institutions who perform cardiac CT, and at local and national levels, to "right-size" reimbursement for cardiac CT exams. This article will provide an overview of various factors affecting cardiac CT reimbursements and advocacy effort.

Accuracy Of The Relative Value Scale Update Committee's Time Estimates And Physician Fee Schedule For Joint Replacement.

Even though relative value units guide 70 percent of physician payment, little research has assessed their accuracy. We analyzed actual service time for total hip and knee replacements at two academic hospitals in the period January 1, 2013-October 1, 2016, using electronic health record time-stamp data, and we compared that time with the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and most recent Relative Value Scale Update Committee recommendations. We found that the committee and fee schedule overestimated the operating time of original hip replacements by 18 percent and original knee replacements by 23 percent. Revision hip replacements were overestimated by 61 percent and knee replacements by 48 percent. In a multivariate analysis we found that faster operating time was not associated with more complications or admissions to the intensive care unit. Complication rates varied tenfold across physicians and twofold across hospitals. The fee schedule and the committee significantly overestimated operating times for original and revision hip and knee replacements. Policy makers should use empirical time-stamp data instead of self-reported estimates to determine physician payment.

Variations in Medicaid Payment Rates for Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Interstate variations in Medicaid reimbursements can be significant, and patients who live in states with low Medicaid reimbursements tend to have worse access to care. This analysis describes the extent of variations in Medicaid reimbursements for radiation oncology services across the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Current Procedural Terminology codes billed for a course of whole breast radiation were identified for this study. Publicly available fee schedules were queried for all 50 states and Washington, DC, to determine the reimbursement for each service and the total reimbursement for the entire episode of care. The degree of interstate payment variation was quantified by computing the range, mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. The cost of care for the entire episode of treatment was compared to the publicly available Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Medicaid-to-Medicare fee index to determine if the pattern of payment variation in medical services generally is predictive of the variation seen in radiation oncology specifically. RESULTS: Data were available for 48 states and Washington, DC. The total episode reimbursement (excluding image guidance for respiratory tracking) varied from $2945 to $15,218 (mean, $7233; standard deviation, $2248 or 31%). The correlation coefficient of the KFF index to the calculated entire episode of care for each state was 0.55. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability in coverage and payments rates for radiation oncology services under Medicaid, and these variations track modestly with broader medical fees based on the KFF index. These variations may have implications for access to radiation oncology services that warrant further study.

Improving The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule: Make It Part Of Value-Based Payment.

Alternative Payment Models (APMs) can address the limitations inherent in fee-for-service payment to support new approaches to health care delivery that produce greater value. But the models being tested are directly layered on top of fee-for-service architecture, specifically the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Shoring up that architecture to produce greater value, in combination with APMs, should be considered an integral part of the movement to value-based payment. We propose ending the split within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services between the people managing the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and those creating and testing APMs, with both groups advised by a revamped Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee that covers both dimensions of creating greater value.

Financial Impact of Alternative Pricing Benchmarks for Physician-Dispensed Drugs in the California Workers' Compensation System.

BACKGROUND: Pricing drugs in the California Workers' Compensation System (CAWCS) has become more difficult as there are increasingly fewer drugs listed in the Medi-Cal primary fee schedule, which is used as the source for CAWCS drug prices. This presents a challenge of providing timely and accurate CAWCS reimbursement. The objectives of this study are (1) to explore any trends in physician-dispensed drug prices; (2) to compare the proportion of drugs with and without a price and to determine the financial implications of repricing CAWCS physician-dispensed drugs with five alternative pricing benchmarks; and (3) to offer recommendations for the pricing benchmark to maximize pricing coverage and to remain budget neutral. METHODS: We evaluated physician-dispensed drugs at the transaction level, reimbursed in the CAWCS. Frequency, reimbursement rate, and total and average paid costs were reported. We matched each claim line in the CAWCS to the corresponding unit price of an alternative price benchmark including average wholesale price, wholesale acquisition cost, direct prices, national average drug acquisition cost, and Federal Upper Limit. RESULTS: Average wholesale price provided prices for 99.9% of physician-dispensed drug claims, while Medi-Cal, the current primary physician-dispensed drug benchmark provided prices for a lower percentage (92.7%) of claims. The CAWCS prices were equivalent to 49% of the average wholesale price, 95.5% of Medi-Cal, 126.7% of the wholesale acquisition cost, 266% of the Federal Upper Limit, 64.4% of direct prices, and 197% of national average drug acquisition cost-estimated prices. CONCLUSIONS: The CAWCS current Medi-Cal pricing for physician-dispensed drugs is better than all alternatives in terms of price availability, transparency, and budget neutrality, but pricing availability may decrease over time as Medi-Cal moves to managed care. National average drug acquisition cost is the next best alternative, but it requires combinations of pricing benchmarks to maximize its price availability.

Putting Complex Older Persons First: How the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2019 Payment Proposal Fails Older Americans.

In July 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule rule for calendar year 2019 (MPFS2019). The proposal sets forth CMS-recommended updates to Medicare payment policies, payment rates, and quality provisions for services provided in the next calendar year. From year to year, the rule also can serve as a vehicle for soliciting input on new payment proposals and changes to existing policies. Among the payment and quality proposals in the MPFS2019 proposal, CMS proposed extensive changes to Current Procedural Terminology codes that are the framework for documentation and payment for office-based evaluation and management (E/M) services. The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) believes the proposed payment methodology changes for E/M services would have had a significant negative impact on care for older Americans. On September 10, 2018, the AGS submitted its comments on this proposal and other aspects of the rule, and the AGS also submitted a comment letter signed by 41 organizations from an AGS-led multispecialty coalition. The coalition also worked collaboratively on outreach to Congress, which included visits to Capitol Hill and a coalition letter stressing our collective support for reducing the burden of documentation for clinicians and our opposition to the proposed changes in payment methodology. In all letters, we noted that the AGS and members of our coalition hoped to work collaboratively with CMS and other stakeholders to develop a refined approach that would achieve the best possible outcomes for patients, particularly frail older Americans with multiple chronic conditions. In releasing their final MPFS2019, CMS postponed the E/M coding collapse for at least two years, a decision that speaks to the hard work of the AGS, its members, and the multi-specialty coalition, and which opens the door for further discussions about the future of payment for E/M services so critical to older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:145-150, 2019.

Medicare Program; End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System, Payment for Renal Dialysis Services Furnished to Individuals With Acute Kidney Injury, End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program, Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive Bidding Program (CBP) and Fee Schedule Amounts, and Technical Amendments To Correct Existing Regulations Related to the CBP for Certain DMEPOS. Final rule.

This final rule updates and makes revisions to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Prospective Payment System (PPS) for calendar year (CY) 2019. This rule also updates the payment rate for renal dialysis services furnished by an ESRD facility to individuals with acute kidney injury (AKI). In addition, it updates and rebases the ESRD market basket for CY 2019. This rule also updates requirements for the ESRD Quality Incentive Program (QIP), and makes technical amendments to correct existing regulations related to the Competitive Bidding Program (CBP) for certain Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS). Finally, this rule finalizes changes to bidding and pricing methodologies under the DMEPOS competitive bidding program; adjustments to DMEPOS fee schedule amounts using information from competitive bidding for items furnished from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020; new payment classes for oxygen and oxygen equipment and a new methodology for ensuring that new payment classes for oxygen and oxygen equipment are budget neutral; payment rules for multi- function ventilators or ventilators that perform functions of other durable medical equipment (DME); and revises the payment methodology for mail order items furnished in the Northern Mariana Islands. This rule also includes a summary of the feedback received for the request for information related to establishing fee schedule amounts for new DMEPOS items and services.