Is Physician Work in Procedure and Test Codes More Highly Valued Than That in Evaluation and Management Codes?

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

Optimal NIV Medicare Access Promotion: Patients With Central Sleep Apnea A Technical Expert Panel Report From the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Association for Respiratory Care, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, and the American Thoracic Society

This document summarizes suggestions of the central sleep apnea (CSA) Technical Expert Panel working group. This paper shares our vision for bringing the right device to the right patient at the right time. For patients with CSA, current coverage criteria do not align with guideline treatment recommendations. For example, CPAP and oxygen therapy are recommended but not covered for CSA. On the other hand, bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) without a backup rate may be a covered therapy for OSA, but it may worsen CSA. Narrow coverage criteria that require near elimination of obstructive breathing events on CPAP or BPAP in the spontaneous mode, even if at poorly tolerated pressure levels, may preclude therapy with BPAP with backup rate or adaptive servoventilation, even when those devices provide demonstrably better therapy. CSA is a dynamic disorder that may require different treatments over time, sometimes switching from one device to another; an example is switching from BPAP with backup rate to an adaptive servoventilation with automatic end-expiratory pressure adjustments, which may not be covered. To address these challenges, we suggest several changes to the coverage determinations, including: (1) a single simplified initial and continuing coverage definition of CSA that aligns with OSA; (2) removal of hypoventilation terminology from coverage criteria for CSA; (3) all effective therapies for CSA should be covered, including oxygen and all PAP devices with or without backup rates or servo-mechanisms; and (4) patients shown to have a suboptimal response to one PAP device should be allowed to add oxygen or change to another PAP device with different capabilities if shown to be effective with testing

Optimal NIV Medicare Access Promotion: Patients With OSA A Technical Expert Panel Report From the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Association for Respiratory Care, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, and the American Thoracic Society

This document summarizes the work of the CPAP and bilevel PAP therapy for OSA Technical Expert Panel working group. For positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy, the most pressing current coverage barriers identified were: an insufficient symptom list describing all potential symptoms in patients with mild OSA; the 4 h per night of PAP usage requirement to keep the device; the additional sleep studies requirement to re-qualify for PAP or supplemental oxygen; and the inability to use telehealth visits for follow-up visits. Critical evidence supports changes to current policies and includes: symptom list inadequate to cover all scenarios based on updated clinical practice guidelines; published evidence that 2 h per night of PAP use can result in benefit to quality of life and other metrics; the costs of another sleep study not justified for all nonadherent patients or for supplemental oxygen due to other types of assessment currently available; and the remarkable success and acceptance of telehealth visits. To achieve optimal access for patients on PAP therapy, we make the following key suggestions: removing symptom criteria for mild OSA; reduce continued coverage criteria to > 2 h per night; eliminate the need for a sleep study to re-qualify if nonadherent or for new Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services beneficiaries already on and adherent to PAP therapy; allow telehealth visits for documenting benefit and adherence; and allow PAP reports and domiciliary oximetry to qualify for supplemental oxygen with PAP if needed. This paper shares our best vision for bringing the right device to the right patient at the right time

Optimal NIV Medicare Access Promotion: Patients With COPD A Technical Expert Panel Report From the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Association for Respiratory Care, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, and the American Thoracic Society

This document summarizes the work of the COPD Technical Expert Panel working group. For patients with COPD, the most pressing current coverage barriers identified were onerous diagnostic requirements focused on oxygenation (rather than ventilation) and difficulty obtaining bilevel devices with backup rate capabilities. Because of these difficulties, many patients with COPD were instead sometimes prescribed home mechanical ventilators. Critical evidence supports changes to current policies, including randomized controlled trial evidence suggesting a mortality benefit from bilevel positive airway pressure with backup rate and updated clinical practice guidelines from the American Thoracic Society as well as the European Respiratory Society. To achieve optimal access to noninvasive ventilation for patients with COPD, we make the following key recommendations: (1) removal of the need for overnight oximetry testing; (2) the ability to initiate therapy using bilevel devices with backup rate capability; and (3) increased duration of time to meet adherence criteria (ie, a second 90-day trial period) in those patients actively engaged in their care. Clear guidelines based on medical necessity are also included for patients who require initiation of or switch to a home mechanical ventilator. Adoption of these proposed recommendations would result in the right device, for the right type of patient with COPD, at the right time. Finally, we emphasize the need for adequate clinical support during initiation and maintenance of home noninvasive ventilation in such patients

Optimal NIV Medicare Access Promotion: Patients With Thoracic Restrictive Disorders A Technical Expert Panel Report From the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Association for Respiratory Care, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, and the American Thoracic Society

The existing coverage criteria for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) do not recognize the benefits of early initiation of NIV for those with thoracic restrictive disorders and do not address the unique needs for daytime support as the patients progress to ventilator dependence. This document summarizes the work of the thoracic restrictive disorder Technical Expert Panel working group. The most pressing current coverage barriers identified were: (1) delays in implementing NIV treatment; (2) lack of coverage for many nonprogressive neuromuscular diseases; and (3) lack of clear policy indications for home mechanical ventilation (HMV) support in thoracic restrictive disorders. To best address these issues, we make the following key recommendations: (1) given the need to encourage early initiation of NIV with bilevel positive airway pressure devices, we recommend that symptoms be considered as a reason to initiate therapy even at mildly reduced FVCs; (2) broaden CO2 measurements to include surrogates such as transcutaneous, end-tidal, or venous blood gas; (3) expand the diagnostic category to include phrenic nerve injuries and disorders of central drive; (4) allow a bilevel positive airway pressure device to be advanced to an HMV when the vital capacity is < 30% or to address severe daytime respiratory symptoms; and (5) provide additional HMV when the patient is ventilator dependent with use > 18 h per day. Adoption of these proposed recommendations would result in the right device, at the right time, for the right type of patients with thoracic restrictive disorders

Optimal NIV Medicare Access Promotion: Patients With Hypoventilation Syndromes A Technical Expert Panel Report From the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Association for Respiratory Care, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, and the American Thoracic Society

The existing coverage criteria for home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) do not recognize the diversity of hypoventilation syndromes and advances in technologies. This document summarizes the work of the hypoventilation syndromes Technical Expert Panel working group. The most pressing current coverage barriers identified were: (1) overreliance on arterial blood gases (particularly during sleep); (2) need to perform testing on prescribed oxygen; (3) requiring a sleep study to rule out OSA as the cause of sustained hypoxemia; (4) need for spirometry; (5) need to show bilevel positive airway pressure (BPAP) without a backup rate failure to qualify for BPAP spontaneous/timed; and (6) qualifying hospitalized patients for home NIV therapy at the time of discharge. Critical evidence support for changes to current policies includes randomized controlled trial evidence and clinical practice guidelines. To decrease morbidity and mortality by achieving timely access to NIV for patients with hypoventilation, particularly those with obesity hypoventilation syndrome, we make the following key suggestions: (1) given the significant technological advances, we advise acceptance of surrogate noninvasive end-tidal and transcutaneous Pco2 and venous blood gases in lieu of arterial blood gases; (2) not requiring Pco2 measures while on prescribed oxygen; (3) not requiring a sleep study to avoid delays in care in patients being discharged from the hospital; (4) remove spirometry as a requirement; and (5) not requiring BPAP without a backup rate failure to approve BPAP spontaneous/timed. The overarching goal of the Technical Expert Panel is to establish pathways that improve clinicians' management capability to provide Medicare beneficiaries access to appropriate home NIV therapy. Adoption of these proposed suggestions would result in the right device, for the right type of patient with hypoventilation syndromes, at the right time