Literature DB >> 32293659

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

Christopher P Childers1, Melinda Maggard-Gibbons1.   

Abstract

Importance: The work relative value units (wRVUs) for a physician service can be conceptualized as the amount of time spent by the physician multiplied by a compensation rate (wRVUs/min). Disproportionately high compensation rates assigned to procedures have been blamed for pay differences across specialties, but to our knowledge, a comprehensive assessment is lacking. Objective: To assess how compensation rates built into work RVUs contribute to differences in physician compensation across specialties. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis examined 2017 Part B fee-for-service Medicare data. The data were analyzed from May 1 to May 30, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: A specialty-wide compensation rate (wRVUs/min) was generated for 42 medical and surgical specialties defined as the sum of wRVUs for all billed current procedural terminology codes divided by the presumed time to perform those services. This measure accounted for the volume and diversity of services each specialty provides. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the association of errors in wRVU time estimates with average compensation rates.
Results: The final sample included 42 specialties and 6587 distinct Current Procedual Terminology (CPT) codes. The number of CPT codes attributed to a specialty ranged from 575 (medical oncology) to 4346 (general surgery). Compensation rates ranged from 0.029 wRVUs/min (pathology) to 0.057 wRVUs/min (emergency medicine). Most specialties (34/42 [81.0%]) had compensation rates between 0.035 and 0.045 wRVUs/min. The mean compensation rate for surgical specialties was 7.2% higher than for medical specialties, a difference that was not statistically significant. This narrow range reflects the fact that most specialties had more than 60% of time allocated to activities outside the intraservice period. Assuming that time values for surgical procedures are significantly overestimated increased the difference in average compensation between surgical and medical specialties to 23.4%. Conclusions and Relevance: Compensation rates assumed in wRVU valuations are small contributors to differences in physician compensation. Factors outside of the wRVU system, such as payer mix and work hours, could be targeted if narrowing the difference in compensation across specialties is desired.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32293659      PMCID: PMC7160740          DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0422

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  15 in total

1.  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

2.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-10-20       Impact factor: 79.321

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

Authors:  Miriam J Laugesen; Roy Wada; Eric M Chen
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 4.  The undervaluation of evaluation and management professional services: the lasting impact of current procedural terminology code deficiencies on physician payment.

Authors:  Erik A Kumetz; John D Goodson
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 9.410

5.  A Step toward Protecting Payments for Primary Care.

Authors:  Bruce E Landon
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Development of a Model for the Validation of Work Relative Value Units for the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

Authors:  Barbara O Wynn; Lane F Burgette; Andrew W Mulcahy; Edward N Okeke; Ian Brantley; Neema Iyer; Teague Ruder; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Rand Health Q       Date:  2015-07-15

7.  Estimating Surgical Procedure Times Using Anesthesia Billing Data and Operating Room Records.

Authors:  Lane F Burgette; Andrew W Mulcahy; Ateev Mehrotra; Teague Ruder; Barbara O Wynn
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Estimating physicians' work for a resource-based relative-value scale.

Authors:  W C Hsiao; P Braun; D Yntema; E R Becker
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1988-09-29       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Strategies for reforming Medicare's physician payments. Physician diagnosis-related groups and other approaches.

Authors:  S F Jencks; A Dobson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1985-06-06       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Medicare payment for cognitive vs procedural care: minding the gap.

Authors:  Christine A Sinsky; David C Dugdale
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 21.873

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  Medicare reimbursement trends from 2000 to 2020 in head and neck surgical oncology.

Authors:  Humzah A Quereshy; Brooke A Quinton; Claudia I Cabrera; Shawn Li; Akina Tamaki; Nicole Fowler
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 3.821

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.