Richard Duszak1, Michael R Mabry. 1. West Reading Radiology Associates, P.O. Box 16052, Sixth and Spruce Streets, Reading, Pennsylvania 19612-6052, USA. rich@duszak.net
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate trends in evaluation and management (E & M) services performed by interventional radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Recent national Medicare physician utilization data (1997-2000) were analyzed for trends in E & M services provided by interventional radiologists. The results were evaluated in conjunction with a recent Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) membership survey in which 165 interventional radiology (IR) practices answered questions about clinical service issues. RESULTS: Despite the perception of frequent clinical services by interventional radiologists, paid Medicare claims for E & M services have increased only minimally, from 9,472 to 9,662 (+2.0%), and have lagged behind non-E & M procedural services, which have increased from 2,283,111 to 2,527,323 (+10.7%). The relative value unit (RVU) impact of E & M encounters has increased from 14,422 to 14,893 (+3.2%) while the RVU impact of procedural services has increased from 2,262,991 to 3,723,486 (+64.5%). E & M services account for only 0.39% of all Medicare claims, 0.49% of service RVUs, and 0.68% of all reimbursable time spent by interventionalists. However, when surveyed, interventional radiologists perceived that E & M services are much more frequent: 92% provide clinical services and indicate that 6.6% +/- 5.4 of physician time is spent providing E & M services. CONCLUSION: Despite perceptions by interventional radiologists that E & M services are common, Medicare claims for such services are infrequent and growth lags behind that of IR services overall. These discrepancies may be explained in part by practice and billing infrastructures that do not effectively translate actual clinical services into successful claims.
PURPOSE: To evaluate trends in evaluation and management (E & M) services performed by interventional radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Recent national Medicare physician utilization data (1997-2000) were analyzed for trends in E & M services provided by interventional radiologists. The results were evaluated in conjunction with a recent Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) membership survey in which 165 interventional radiology (IR) practices answered questions about clinical service issues. RESULTS: Despite the perception of frequent clinical services by interventional radiologists, paid Medicare claims for E & M services have increased only minimally, from 9,472 to 9,662 (+2.0%), and have lagged behind non-E & M procedural services, which have increased from 2,283,111 to 2,527,323 (+10.7%). The relative value unit (RVU) impact of E & M encounters has increased from 14,422 to 14,893 (+3.2%) while the RVU impact of procedural services has increased from 2,262,991 to 3,723,486 (+64.5%). E & M services account for only 0.39% of all Medicare claims, 0.49% of service RVUs, and 0.68% of all reimbursable time spent by interventionalists. However, when surveyed, interventional radiologists perceived that E & M services are much more frequent: 92% provide clinical services and indicate that 6.6% +/- 5.4 of physician time is spent providing E & M services. CONCLUSION: Despite perceptions by interventional radiologists that E & M services are common, Medicare claims for such services are infrequent and growth lags behind that of IR services overall. These discrepancies may be explained in part by practice and billing infrastructures that do not effectively translate actual clinical services into successful claims.