Cameron J Gettel1, Maureen E Canavan2, Margaret B Greenwood-Ericksen3, Vivek L Parwani4, Andrew S Ulrich4, Randy L Pilgrim5, Arjun K Venkatesh6. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; National Clinician Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. Electronic address: cameron.gettel@yale.edu. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Cancer Outcomes and Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. 5. SCP-Health, Lafayette, LA. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We seek to examine differences in the provision of high-acuity professional services between rural and urban physicians receiving reimbursement for emergency care evaluation and management services from Medicare fee-for-service Part B. METHODS: Using the 2017 Medicare Public Use Files, we performed a cross-sectional analysis and defined the primary outcome, the proportion of high-acuity charts (PHAC), at the physician level as the proportion of services provided as 99285 and 99291 emergency care evaluation and management service codes relative to all such codes. After accounting for unique clinician-level characteristics, we categorized individual physicians by PHAC quintiles and conducted ordered logistic regression analyses reporting adjusted marginal probabilities to examine associations with rurality. RESULTS: A total of 34,256 physicians providing emergency care had a median PHAC of 66.8% (interquartile range 55.6% to 75.7%), with 89.2% practicing in an urban setting. Urban and rural physicians had respective median PHACs of 67.6% (interquartile range 57.1% to 76.2%) and 57.9% (interquartile range 42.7% to 69.4%). Urban and rural physicians had respective adjusted marginal probabilities of 15.2% and 11.8% of being in the highest PHAC quintile, and respective adjusted marginal probabilities of 14.3% and 18.2% of being in the lowest PHAC quintile. CONCLUSION: In comparison with rural physicians, urban physicians providing emergency care received reimbursements for a greater PHAC when caring for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Policymakers must consider these differences in the design and implementation of new emergency care payment policies.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We seek to examine differences in the provision of high-acuity professional services between rural and urban physicians receiving reimbursement for emergency care evaluation and management services from Medicare fee-for-service Part B. METHODS: Using the 2017 Medicare Public Use Files, we performed a cross-sectional analysis and defined the primary outcome, the proportion of high-acuity charts (PHAC), at the physician level as the proportion of services provided as 99285 and 99291 emergency care evaluation and management service codes relative to all such codes. After accounting for unique clinician-level characteristics, we categorized individual physicians by PHAC quintiles and conducted ordered logistic regression analyses reporting adjusted marginal probabilities to examine associations with rurality. RESULTS: A total of 34,256 physicians providing emergency care had a median PHAC of 66.8% (interquartile range 55.6% to 75.7%), with 89.2% practicing in an urban setting. Urban and rural physicians had respective median PHACs of 67.6% (interquartile range 57.1% to 76.2%) and 57.9% (interquartile range 42.7% to 69.4%). Urban and rural physicians had respective adjusted marginal probabilities of 15.2% and 11.8% of being in the highest PHAC quintile, and respective adjusted marginal probabilities of 14.3% and 18.2% of being in the lowest PHAC quintile. CONCLUSION: In comparison with rural physicians, urban physicians providing emergency care received reimbursements for a greater PHAC when caring for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Policymakers must consider these differences in the design and implementation of new emergency care payment policies.
Authors: Matthew Toth; Mark Holmes; Courtney Van Houtven; Mark Toles; Morris Weinberger; Pam Silberman Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Maame Yaa A B Yiadom; Christopher W Baugh; Tyler W Barrett; Xulei Liu; Alan B Storrow; Timothy J Vogus; Vikram Tiwari; Corey M Slovis; Stephan Russ; Dandan Liu Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Andrew M Ibrahim; Justin B Dimick; Shashank S Sinha; John M Hollingsworth; Ushapoorna Nuliyalu; Andrew M Ryan Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jennifer L Wiler; Robert F Poirier; Heather Farley; William Zirkin; Richard T Griffey Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Cyrus M Kosar; Lacey Loomer; Kali S Thomas; Elizabeth M White; Orestis A Panagiotou; Momotazur Rahman Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Cameron J Gettel; D Mark Courtney; Alexander T Janke; Craig Rothenberg; Angela M Mills; Wendy Sun; Arjun K Venkatesh Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 6.762