Literature DB >> 22566435

In setting doctors' Medicare fees, CMS almost always accepts the relative value update panel's advice on work values.

Miriam J Laugesen1, Roy Wada, Eric M Chen.   

Abstract

To calculate physicians' fees under Medicare--which in turn influence the physician fee schedules of other public and private payers--one of the essential decisions the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) must make is how much physician time and effort, or work, is associated with various physician services. To make this determination, CMS relies on the recommendations of an advisory committee representing national physician organizations. Some experts on primary care who are concerned about the income gap between primary and specialty care providers have blamed the committee for increasing that gap. Our analysis of CMS's decisions on updating work values between 1994 and 2010 found that CMS agreed with 87.4 percent of the committee's recommendations, although CMS reduced recommended work values for a limited number of radiology and medical specialty services. If policy makers or physicians want to change the update process but keep the Medicare fee schedule in its current form, CMS's capacity to review changes in relative value units could be strengthened through long-term investment in the agency's ability to undertake research and analysis of issues such as how the effort and time associated with different physician services is determined, and which specialties--if any--receive higher payments than others as a result.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22566435      PMCID: PMC5590651          DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0557

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  7 in total

1.  Validation of physician survey estimates of surgical time using operating room logs.

Authors:  Nancy McCall; Jerry Cromwell; Peter Braun
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.929

2.  The primary care-specialty income gap: why it matters.

Authors:  Thomas Bodenheimer; Robert A Berenson; Paul Rudolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Revising Medicare's physician fee schedule--much activity, little change.

Authors:  Paul B Ginsburg; Robert A Berenson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-03-22       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Unintended consequences of resource-based relative value scale reimbursement.

Authors:  John D Goodson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Use of physicians' services under Medicare's resource-based payments.

Authors:  Stephanie Maxwell; Stephen Zuckerman; Robert A Berenson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-05-03       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Resource-based relative values. An overview.

Authors:  W C Hsiao; P Braun; D Dunn; E R Becker
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1988-10-28       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The income gap: specialties vs primary care or procedural vs nonprocedural specialties?

Authors:  Bruce Sigsbee
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 9.910

  7 in total
  9 in total

1.  Regarding "Committee Representation and Medicare Reimbursements: An Examination of the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale".

Authors:  Miriam J Laugesen
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Improving the quality and lowering the cost of health care: Medicare reforms from the National Commission on Physician Payment Reform.

Authors:  Kavita K Patel; Jeffrey Nadel
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Time to Do the Right Thing: End Fee-for-Service for Primary Care.

Authors:  Michael K Magill
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  Committee Representation and Medicare Reimbursements-An Examination of the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale.

Authors:  Y Nina Gao
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Assessment of the Contribution of the Work Relative Value Unit Scale to Differences in Physician Compensation Across Medical and Surgical Specialties.

Authors:  Christopher P Childers; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 14.766

6.  Association of Work Measures and Specialty With Assigned Work Relative Value Units Among Surgeons.

Authors:  Christopher P Childers; Jill Q Dworsky; Marcia M Russell; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 14.766

7.  The Correlation Between Case Total Work Relative Value Unit, Operative Stress, and Patient Frailty: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Katherine M Reitz; Patrick R Varley; Nathan L Liang; Ada Youk; Elizabeth L George; Myrick C Shinall; Paula K Shireman; Shipra Arya; Edith Tzeng; Daniel E Hall
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 13.787

8.  The Coming Primary Care Revolution.

Authors:  Andrew L Ellner; Russell S Phillips
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  A tree based approach for multi-class classification of surgical procedures using structured and unstructured data.

Authors:  Tannaz Khaleghi; Alper Murat; Suzan Arslanturk
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-11-23       Impact factor: 2.796

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.