Kevin A Kerber1, Marc Raphaelson, Gregory L Barkley, James F Burke. 1. *Department of Neurology Health Services Research Program, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI †Private practice, Leesburg, VA ‡Department of Neurology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule confers higher value for physician work in procedure and test codes than in Evaluation and Management (E/M) codes. BACKGROUND: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission previously demonstrated that time for medical services is the dominant element in valuing physician work in the CMS Physician Fee Schedule. In contrast, a more recent analysis suggests that more relative value units (RVUs) per unit time are issued for work in procedure codes than in E/M codes. Both prior analyses had important limitations for evaluating a possible systematic differential valuation of medical services. METHODS: Data regarding RVUs, physician work times (minutes), and claims were obtained for all active level I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from 2011 CMS files. Linear regression was used to assess the associations of work time components and CPT category with work RVUs, including a model that weighted codes by the number of claims. RESULTS: Included in the analysis were 6522 CPT codes (87 E/M codes, 6435 procedure/test codes). Compared with E/M codes, procedure/test codes did not have a significant difference in work RVUs adjusting for time (-0.631; 95% confidence interval, -1.427 to 0.166). The analysis also did not indicate a work RVU advantage specifically for Surgical CPT codes compared with E/M adjusting for time (-0.760; 95% confidence interval, -1.560 to 0.040). This pattern was not altered after weighting codes by the number of claims, indicating that an increase in RVUs per minute was not concentrated in a small number of highly utilized procedure codes. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence of a systematic higher valuation of physician work in procedure/test codes than in E/M codes in the CMS RVU system.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule confers higher value for physician work in procedure and test codes than in Evaluation and Management (E/M) codes. BACKGROUND: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission previously demonstrated that time for medical services is the dominant element in valuing physician work in the CMS Physician Fee Schedule. In contrast, a more recent analysis suggests that more relative value units (RVUs) per unit time are issued for work in procedure codes than in E/M codes. Both prior analyses had important limitations for evaluating a possible systematic differential valuation of medical services. METHODS: Data regarding RVUs, physician work times (minutes), and claims were obtained for all active level I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from 2011 CMS files. Linear regression was used to assess the associations of work time components and CPT category with work RVUs, including a model that weighted codes by the number of claims. RESULTS: Included in the analysis were 6522 CPT codes (87 E/M codes, 6435 procedure/test codes). Compared with E/M codes, procedure/test codes did not have a significant difference in work RVUs adjusting for time (-0.631; 95% confidence interval, -1.427 to 0.166). The analysis also did not indicate a work RVU advantage specifically for Surgical CPT codes compared with E/M adjusting for time (-0.760; 95% confidence interval, -1.560 to 0.040). This pattern was not altered after weighting codes by the number of claims, indicating that an increase in RVUs per minute was not concentrated in a small number of highly utilized procedure codes. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence of a systematic higher valuation of physician work in procedure/test codes than in E/M codes in the CMS RVU system.
Authors: Mollie McDermott; Douglas J Gelb; Kelsey Wilson; Megan Pawloski; James F Burke; Anita V Shelgikar; Zachary N London Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 18.302