Tyler J Miksanek1, M Reza Skandari2, Sandra A Ham3, Wei Wei Lee1, Valerie G Press1, Marie T Brown4, Neda Laiteerapong1. 1. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois (T.J.M., W.W.L., V.G.P., N.L.). 2. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Innovation, Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom (M.R.S.). 3. Center for Health and the Social Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois (S.A.H.). 4. Rush Medical College, Chicago, Illinois (M.T.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Economic analyses of medical scribes have been limited to individual, specialty-specific clinics. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of additional patient visits various specialties would need to recover the costs of implementing scribes in their practice at 1 year. DESIGN: Modeling study based on 2015 data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Scribe costs were based on literature review and a third-party contractor model. Revenue was calculated from direct visit billing, CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) billing, and data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. DATA SOURCES: 2015 data from CMS and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. TARGET POPULATION: Health care providers. TIME HORIZON: 1 year. PERSPECTIVE: Office-based clinic. OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of additional patient visits a physician must have to recover the costs of a scribe program at 1 year. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: An average of 1.34 additional new patient visits per day (295 per year) were required to recover scribe costs (range, 0.89 [cardiology] to 1.80 [orthopedic surgery] new patient visits per day). For returning patients, an average of 2.15 additional visits per day (472 per year) were required (range, 1.65 [cardiology] to 2.78 [orthopedic surgery] returning visits per day). The addition of 2 new patient (or 3 returning) visits per day was profitable for all specialties. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were not sensitive to most inputs, with the exception of hourly scribe cost and inclusion of CPT revenue. LIMITATION: Use of Medicare data and failure to account for indirect costs, downstream revenue, or changes in documentation quality. CONCLUSION: For all specialties, modest increases in productivity due to scribes may allow physicians to see more patients and offset scribe costs, making scribe programs revenue-neutral. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: University of Chicago Medicine's Center for Healthcare Delivery Science and Innovation and the Bucksbaum Institute.
BACKGROUND: Economic analyses of medical scribes have been limited to individual, specialty-specific clinics. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of additional patient visits various specialties would need to recover the costs of implementing scribes in their practice at 1 year. DESIGN: Modeling study based on 2015 data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Scribe costs were based on literature review and a third-party contractor model. Revenue was calculated from direct visit billing, CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) billing, and data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. DATA SOURCES: 2015 data from CMS and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. TARGET POPULATION: Health care providers. TIME HORIZON: 1 year. PERSPECTIVE: Office-based clinic. OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of additional patient visits a physician must have to recover the costs of a scribe program at 1 year. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: An average of 1.34 additional new patient visits per day (295 per year) were required to recover scribe costs (range, 0.89 [cardiology] to 1.80 [orthopedic surgery] new patient visits per day). For returning patients, an average of 2.15 additional visits per day (472 per year) were required (range, 1.65 [cardiology] to 2.78 [orthopedic surgery] returning visits per day). The addition of 2 new patient (or 3 returning) visits per day was profitable for all specialties. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were not sensitive to most inputs, with the exception of hourly scribe cost and inclusion of CPT revenue. LIMITATION: Use of Medicare data and failure to account for indirect costs, downstream revenue, or changes in documentation quality. CONCLUSION: For all specialties, modest increases in productivity due to scribes may allow physicians to see more patients and offset scribe costs, making scribe programs revenue-neutral. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: University of Chicago Medicine's Center for Healthcare Delivery Science and Innovation and the Bucksbaum Institute.
Authors: Elizabeth R Pfoh; Sandra Hong; Laura Baranek; Michael B Rothberg; Sarah Beinkampen; Anita D Misra-Hebert; Susan J Rehm; Andrea L Sikon Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jordan R Pollock; M Lane Moore; Aaron C Llanes; Joseph C Brinkman; Justin L Makovicka; Donald L Dulle; Nathaniel B Hinckley; Anthony Barcia; Matthew Anastasi; Anikar Chhabra Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2022-04-08
Authors: Sky Corby; Keaton Whittaker; Joan S Ash; Vishnu Mohan; James Becton; Nicholas Solberg; Robby Bergstrom; Benjamin Orwoll; Christopher Hoekstra; Jeffrey A Gold Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 2.796