Medicare Program; Five-Year Review of Work Relative Value Units Under the Physician Fee Schedule
Federal RegisterMay 3, 1996
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: This proposed notice discusses changes to work relative value
units (RVUs) affecting payment for physician services. Section
1848(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act requires that we review all
work RVUs no less often than every 5 years. Since we implemented the
physician fee schedule effective for services furnished beginning
January 1, 1992, we have initiated the 5-year review of work RVUs that
will be effective for services furnished beginning January 1, 1997.
DATES: Comments will be considered if we receive them at the
appropriate address, as provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on July 2,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments (1 original and 3 copies) to the
following address: Health Care Financing Administration, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention: BPD-846-PN, P.O. Box 7519,
Baltimore, MD 21207-0519.
If you prefer, you may deliver your written comments (1 original
and 3 copies) to one of the following addresses:
Room 309-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20201, or
Room C5-09-26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
Because of staffing and resource limitations, we cannot accept
comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In commenting, please refer
to file code BPD-846-PN. Comments received timely will be available for
public inspection as they are received, generally beginning
approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, in Room 309-G of
the Department's offices at 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC, on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
(phone: (202) 690-7890).
Copies: To order copies of the Federal Register containing this
document, send your request to: New Orders, Superintendent of
Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Specify the date
of the issue requested and enclose a check or money order payable to
the Superintendent of Documents, or enclose your Visa or Master Card
number and expiration date. Credit card orders can also be placed by
calling the order desk at (202) 512-1800 or by faxing to (202) 512-
2250. The cost for each copy is $8. As an alternative, you can view and
photocopy the Federal Register document at most libraries designated as
Federal Depository Libraries and at many other public and academic
libraries throughout the country that receive the Federal Register.
This Federal Register document is also available from the Federal
Register online database through GPO Access, a service of the U.S.
Government Printing Office. Free public access is available on a Wide
Area Information Server (WAIS) through the Internet and via
asynchronous dial-in. Internet users can access the database by using
the World Wide Web; the Superintendent of Documents home page address
is http://www.access.gpo.gov/su____docs/, by using local WAIS client
software, or by telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov, then login as guest (no
password required). Dial-in users should use communications software
and modem to call (202) 512-1661; type swais, then login as guest (no
password required). For general information about GPO Access, contact
the GPO Access User Support Team by sending Internet e-mail to
[email protected]; by faxing to (202) 512-1262; or by calling
(202) 512-1530 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through
Friday, except for Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Holland, (410) 786-1309.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To assist readers in referencing sections
contained in this proposed notice, we are providing the following table
of contents.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Legislative Requirements
B. Published Changes to the Physician Fee Schedule
C. Summary of the Development of Physician Work Relative Value
Units
D. Scope of the Review
II. Discussion of Comments and Decisions
A. Review of Comments (Includes Table 1--Five-Year Review of
Work Relative Value Units)
B. Discussion of Comments by Clinical Area
1. Integumentary System
2. Orthopaedic Surgery
3. Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial Surgery
4. Podiatry
5. Cardiology and Interventional Radiology
6. General Surgery, Colon and Rectal Surgery, and
Gastroenterology
7. Urology
8. Gynecology
9. Neurosurgery
10. Ophthalmology
11. Imaging
12. Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery
13. Pathology and Laboratory Procedures
14. Psychiatry
15. Other Medical and Therapeutic Services
16. Speech/Language/Hearing
C. Other Comments
1. Evaluation and Management Services (Includes Table 2--
Evaluation and Management Codes; Five-Year Review--Proposed Relative
Value Units)
2. Review of Studies by Abt Associates, Inc.
3. Pediatrics
4. Anesthesia
5. Codes Without Work Relative Value Units
6. Codes Referred to the Physicians' Current Procedural
Terminology Editorial Panel (Includes Table 3--Codes Referred to the
Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel)
7. Potentially Overvalued Services
D. Other Issues
1. Budget Neutrality
2. Calculation of Practice Expense and Malpractice Expense
Relative Value Units
3. Impact of Work Relative Value Unit Changes for Evaluation and
Management Services on Work Relative Value Units for Global Surgical
Services
4. Proposal for Future Review
5. Nature and Format of Comments on Work Relative Value Units
III. Collection of Information Requirements
IV. Response to Comments
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Effects on Physician Payments
1. Impact Estimation Methodology
2. Overall Fee Schedule Impact
3. Specialty Level Effect (Includes Table 4--Five-Year Review
Impact on Medicare Payments by Specialty)
C. Rural Hospital Impact Statement Addendum--Codes Subject to
Comment
In addition, because of the many organizations and terms to
which we refer by acronym in this proposed notice, we are listing
these acronyms and their corresponding terms in alphabetical order
below:
AMA American Medical Association
CPT [Physicians'] Current Procedural Terminology [4th Edition, 1996,
copyrighted by the American Medical Association]
HCFA Health Care Financing Administration
HCPCS HCFA Common Procedure Coding System
IWPUT Intraservice work per unit time
RUC [American Medical Association Specialty Society] Relative
[Value] Update Committee
RVU Relative value unit
[[Page 19993]]
I. Background
A. Legislative Requirements
The Medicare program was established in 1965 by the addition of
title XVIII to the Social Security Act (the Act). Since January 1,
1992, Medicare pays for physician services under section 1848 of the
Act, ``Payment for Physicians' Services.'' This section contains three
major elements: (1) A fee schedule for the payment of physician
services; (2) a Medicare volume performance standard for the rates of
increase in Medicare expenditures for physician services; and (3)
limits on the amounts that nonparticipating physicians can charge
beneficiaries. The Act requires that payments under the fee schedule be
based on national uniform relative value units (RVUs) based on the
resources used in furnishing a service. Section 1848(c) of the Act
requires that national RVUs be established for physician work, practice
expense, and malpractice expense.
Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act provides that adjustments
in RVUs because of changes resulting from a review of those RVUs may
not cause total physician fee schedule payments to differ by more than
$20 million from what they would have been had the adjustments not been
made. If this tolerance is exceeded, we must make adjustments to
preserve budget neutrality.
B. Published Changes to the Physician Fee Schedule
We published a final rule on November 25, 1991 (56 FR 59502) to
implement section 1848 of the Act by establishing a fee schedule for
physician services furnished on or after January 1, 1992. In the
November 1991 final rule (56 FR 59511), we stated our intention to
update RVUs for new and revised codes in the American Medical
Association's (AMA's) Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology (CPT)
through an ``interim RVU'' process every year. The updates to the RVUs
and fee schedule policies follow:
September 15, 1992, as a correction notice for the 1992
physician fee schedule (57 FR 42491).
November 25, 1992, as a final notice with comment period
on new and revised RVUs only for the 1993 physician fee schedule (57 FR
55914).
June 7, 1993, as a correction notice for the 1993
physician fee schedule (58 FR 31964).
December 2, 1993, as a final rule with comment period (58
FR 63626) announcing revised payment policies and RVUs for 1994. (We
solicited comments on new and revised RVUs only. There were two
correction notices published for the 1994 physician fee schedule (July
15, 1994, 59 FR 36069) and (August 4, 1994, 59 FR 39828).)
December 8, 1994, as a final rule with comment period (59
FR 63410) to revise the geographic adjustment factor values, fee
schedule payment areas, and payment policies and RVUs for 1995. The
final rule also discussed the process for periodic review and
adjustment of RVUs not less frequently than every 5 years as required
by section 1848(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. (There were two correction
notices published for the 1995 physician fee schedule (January 3, 1995,
60 FR 46) and (July 18, 1995, 60 FR 36733).)
December 8, 1995, as a final rule with comment period (60
FR 63124) to revise various policies affecting payment for physician
services including Medicare payment for physician services in teaching
settings, the RVUs for certain existing procedure codes, and to
establish interim RVUs for new and revised procedure codes. The rule
also included the final revised 1996 geographic practice cost indices.
This proposed notice updates information in the final Federal
Register documents listed above. It discusses changes to work RVUs
affecting payment for physician services. Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(i) of
the Act requires that we review all work RVUs no less often than every
5 years. Since we implemented the physician fee schedule effective for
services furnished beginning January 1, 1992, we have initiated the 5-
year review of work RVUs that will be effective for services furnished
beginning January 1, 1997.
C. Summary of the Development of Physician Work Relative Value Units
Development of the concepts and methodology underlying the
physician fee schedule has been under way for a number of years. Based
on Congressional mandates contained in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-272), the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-509), and the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203), we began our effort to
develop a physician fee schedule based on a relative value scale. We
were assisted in this task by a number of experts inside and outside of
government, including the research team at the Harvard University
School of Public Health. The Harvard research team produced ``A
National Study of Resource-Based Relative Value Scales for Physician
Services'' (September 1988) and ``A National Study of Resource-Based
Relative Value Scales for Physician Services Phase II'' (November 1990)
under a cooperative agreement with us. Harvard's Phase III final report
was completed in December of 1991.
A model fee schedule was published on September 4, 1990 as part of
a notice with comment period (55 FR 36178). The addenda to the model
fee schedule notice provided preliminary estimates of the RVUs
associated with the approximately 1,400 services studied as part of the
Harvard Phase I study. We provided a 60-day public comment period;
comments received were considered carefully and were helpful to us in
developing the proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register
on June 5, 1991 (56 FR 25792).
Based primarily on Phase II and some of Phase III of the Harvard
study, the proposed rule contained RVUs for more than 4,000 services
representing about 85 percent of Medicare payments. In Phase II, 15
additional medical and surgical specialties were studied that were not
studied in Phase I. In addition, seven Phase I specialties were
restudied, with four of these restudies funded by the specialty
societies. Not only did Phase II almost triple the number of services
for which RVUs had been produced, but it refined the RVUs for many of
the original 1,400 services.
The final rule published on November 25, 1991 (56 FR 59502) was
based primarily on Phases II and III of the Harvard study, which
produced RVUs for all but about 400 of the remaining Medicare-covered
services that required work RVUs. In Phase III, most of the
extrapolated Phases I and II RVUs were replaced by RVUs that were
generated by a small group survey process, and many preservice and
postservice work estimates for Phases I and II work RVUs were revised.
A few early Phase III results were available for inclusion in the
proposed rule; additional Phase III results were provided to us in
installments throughout 1991. We developed RVUs for roughly 400
services that had not been surveyed by Harvard (generally low volume
services or nonphysician services or services that were extrapolated by
Harvard). Physician work RVUs were reviewed and developed by carrier
medical directors, initially through a survey conducted by mail and
subsequently through group meetings to refine the product of the survey
process. Through a consensus or Delphi-type process, carrier medical
directors rated physician work for the remaining services. In addition,
a number of physician work RVUs were refined based on information
provided as part of the
[[Page 19994]]
comment process on the June 5, 1991 proposed rule.
The AMA Specialty Society Relative Value Update Committee (RUC) was
formed in November 1991 and grew out of a series of discussions between
the AMA and the major national medical specialty societies. The RUC is
comprised of 26 members; 22 are representatives of major specialty
societies. The remaining members represent the AMA, the American
Osteopathic Association, and the CPT Editorial Panel. The work of the
RUC is supported by the RUC Advisory Committee made up of
representatives of 65 specialty societies in the AMA's House of
Delegates.
The RUC currently makes recommendations to us on the assignment of
RVUs for new and revised CPT codes. As we discussed in our December 8,
1994 final rule with comment period, we shared comments we received on
the 1995 work RVUs with the RUC (59 FR 63453). However, we retained the
responsibility for analyzing the comments and developing this proposed
notice.
D. Scope of the Review
We initiated the 5-year review by soliciting public comments on all
work RVUs for approximately 7,000 CPT/HCPCS (HCFA Common Procedure
Coding System) codes published in our December 8, 1994 final rule (59
FR 63410). We reviewed all timely comments received during the comment
period for our December 8, 1994 final rule. We excluded two major areas
of comments from the 5-year review. The first excluded area was
comments that addressed work RVUs that were considered interim for
1995. We considered these comments as a part of our annual review
process, the results of which we published in the December 8, 1995
final rule (60 FR 63124). The second major area we excluded was
comments that addressed practice expense and malpractice expense RVUs.
As we stated in the December 8, 1994 final rule (59 FR 63454), the
scope of the 5-year review is limited to work RVUs.
Three specialty societies (the American Academy of Orthopaedic
Surgeons, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and the American
Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Inc.) submitted
studies conducted for them by Abt Associates, Inc., which spanned all
of the more than 2,000 codes used by physicians in those specialties.
We referred these studies to the RUC. The American Academy of
Pediatrics submitted comments asserting that the physician work
involved in furnishing 480 services to pediatric patients is different
than the physician work involved in furnishing the same services to
adult patients.
After a preliminary screening, we referred approximately 3,500
codes to the RUC for its review. The codes included those found in
public comments (700 codes), the American Academy of Pediatrics
comments (480 codes); three special studies by Abt Associates, Inc.
(about 2,000 codes); and those we identified as potentially misvalued
(300 codes).
II. Discussion of Comments and Decisions
A. Review of Comments
During the comment period for our December 8, 1994 final rule (59
FR 63410), we received more than 500 public comments on approximately
1,100 codes. After review by our medical staff, we forwarded comments
on approximately 700 codes for consideration by the RUC. Comments that
we did not forward are listed in Table 1 and are identified by a code
that explains our rejection of the comment. In addition, we forwarded
comments on approximately 300 codes identified by us as potentially
misvalued.
Comments that we did not refer to the RUC generally fall into
several categories:
Comments that do not pertain to work RVUs or that are not
sufficiently descriptive to be helpful in understanding why the
existing RVUs are incorrect.
Comments on services for which we have not assigned work
RVUs because we have determined that the codes do not represent
physician services or, in a few instances, because they represent
either ``bundled'' or noncovered services.
Comments that are similar to, or duplicate, other comments
which we referred to the RUC.
The process for evaluating codes included in the 5-year review
involved the same basic methodology as the process for the annual
physician fee schedule update, with some important changes. Because the
5-year review involved evaluating the physician work of established
codes with established work RVUs, we needed compelling arguments to
support changes in the assignment of work RVUs. To gather evidence to
support these arguments, in addition to comparing the total physician
work involved in the services under review to key reference services,
we asked commenters to provide a detailed comparison of the preservice,
intraservice, and postservice time involved in the key reference
services selected. For this purpose, for surgical procedures, we
further divided postservice time into time on the day of the procedure,
time in the intensive care unit, hospital visits, and office or other
outpatient visits following discharge.
We also requested comments regarding other elements of physician
work, in addition to time, and the extent to which the service had
changed over the last 5 years. We considered the commenters' statements
regarding the complexity of each nontemporal component for the services
under review and the services used as key references. The nontemporal
components of work are the physician's mental effort and judgment,
technical skill and physical effort, and stress resulting from the risk
of mortality or iatrogenic harm to the patient. We also considered
whether the service had changed over the past 5 years as the result of
one of the following conditions: new technology that had become more
familiar to physicians, the service having been furnished to patients
who had more or less complex medical conditions, or a change in the
site where the service had usually been furnished.
The public comments addressed many CPT codes for evaluation and
management services. Because we introduced the new codes for these
services simultaneously with the Medicare physician fee schedule in
1992 and because we have not revised them during the annual update
process, their inclusion in the 5-year review presents the first
opportunity for evaluating their relative physician work. In the public
comments addressing these services, the major primary care specialty
societies stated that the services had become more difficult than they
were when the original Harvard resource-based relative value scale
surveys were conducted in the late 1980's, due to factors such as
decreasing lengths of hospital stay, increasing complexity of patients
in inpatient and outpatient settings, documentation and case management
requirements, and a better educated patient population that expects
more information from physicians.
For more than 1,000 codes included in the 5-year review, we divided
the CPT codes into clinical groups and another group containing all the
codes identified by the RUC as potentially overvalued services.
(Additional codes from the Abt Associates, Inc. studies and from the
American Academy of Pediatrics' comments are discussed in sections
II.C.2. and II.C.3. of this notice, respectively.) In addition, the AMA
is submitting approximately 65 CPT codes
[[Page 19995]]
to its CPT Editorial Panel. The RUC was unable to recommend work RVUs
for these codes because the services were not clearly described or
could vary widely from patient to patient. We will address these codes
in a future annual update of the physician fee schedule. The following
is a categorization of our decisions and how they relate to the
comments received from the public (including medical specialty
societies) and the RUC:
For 28 percent of the codes, we are proposing to increase
the work RVUs.
For 61 percent of the codes, we are proposing to maintain
the current work RVUs. We are also proposing to maintain the values for
the anesthesia codes.
For 11 percent of the codes, we are proposing to decrease
the work RVUs.
Our proposed work RVUs agree with the RUC recommendations for 93
percent of the codes. Table 1--Five-Year Review of Work Relative Value
Units
Table 1 lists the codes reviewed during the 5-year review. This
table includes the following information:
CPT/HCPCS (HCFA Common Procedure Coding System) code. This
is the CPT or alphanumeric HCPCS code for a service.
Modifier. A modifier -26 is shown if the work RVUs
represent the professional component of the service.
Description. This is an abbreviated version of the
narrative description of the code.
1995 work RVUs. The work RVUs that appeared in the
December 8, 1994 final rule are shown for each reviewed code.
Requested work RVUs. This column identifies the work RVUs
requested by commenters. We received more than one comment on some
codes, and, in a few of these cases, the commenters requested different
RVUs. If the comment was sent to the RUC, the table lists the RVUs sent
to the RUC. The letters ``CPT'' indicate that the commenter requested
that the code be referred to the CPT Editorial Panel. For some codes,
we received no specific RVU recommendations. Some of these codes are
included in the review because of rank order anomaly issues within a
family of codes. An asterisk indicates a code identified by the RUC as
potentially overvalued. The RVUs shown have not been adjusted for
budget neutrality.
RUC recommendation. This column identifies the work RVUs
recommended by the RUC. A letter in this column indicates that the
comment was rejected and not sent to the RUC. An ``A'' indicates that
the comment was covered by another comment. A ``B'' indicates that the
comment was not helpful. A ``C'' indicates that no change was
requested. A ``D'' indicates a misinterpretation of the code. An ``E''
indicates that the comment was withdrawn by the commenter. The letters
``CPT'' indicate that the RUC has referred this code to the CPT
Editorial Panel for further clarification. A ``Z'' indicates that these
services have no physician work and were not subject to the 5-year
review. For a general discussion of these codes, see section II.C.5.
(codes without work relative value units). The letters ``POS'' indicate
that the code is potentially overvalued.
HCFA Decision. This column indicates whether we agreed
with the RUC recommendation (``agreed''); we are proposing work RVUs
that are higher than the RUC recommendation (``increased''); or we are
proposing work RVUs that are less than the RUC recommendation
(``decreased''). Codes for which we did not accept the RUC
recommendation are discussed in greater detail following Table 1. An
(a) in this column indicates that in the absence of a RUC
recommendation we are proposing to maintain the present work RVUs. A
(b) in this column indicates that this code is being considered in the
1996 refinement process.
Proposed work RVUs. This column contains the proposed RVUs
for physician work. The absence of proposed work RVUs indicates that
comments on these codes were rejected or withdrawn and the work RVUs
for these codes are not changing as a result of the 5-year review. The
work RVUs shown have not been adjusted for budget neutrality.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 19996]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.000
[[Page 19997]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.001
[[Page 19998]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.002
[[Page 19999]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.003
[[Page 20000]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.004
[[Page 20001]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.005
[[Page 20002]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.006
[[Page 20003]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.007
[[Page 20004]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.008
[[Page 20005]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.009
[[Page 20006]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.010
[[Page 20007]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.011
[[Page 20008]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.012
[[Page 20009]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.013
[[Page 20010]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.014
[[Page 20011]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.015
[[Page 20012]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.016
[[Page 20013]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.017
[[Page 20014]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.018
[[Page 20015]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.019
[[Page 20016]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.020
[[Page 20017]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.021
[[Page 20018]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.022
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
[[Page 20019]]
B. Discussion of Comments by Clinical Area
1. Integumentary System
Comment: Numerous specialty societies surveyed and commented on the
CPT codes for the integumentary system that they believed were
undervalued or overvalued. In several instances, specialty societies
were responding to reductions proposed by other commenters. The
specialty societies' recommendations were supported with survey data
and arguments that were based on changes in the patient population,
changes in technology, and rank-order anomalies. Survey samples were of
sufficient size to validate the results. Additionally, specialty
societies made cross-specialty comparisons to similar procedures. The
comparisons gave support to arguments and survey data.
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: Generally, the RUC found the data,
comparisons, and arguments convincing. The RUC looked for compelling
evidence that the procedure had changed, the patient population had
changed, or the code had been originally undervalued or overvalued.
When the RUC recommended different work RVUs, it typically attempted to
reconcile new survey data and rationale with Harvard data, producing
final recommended work RVUs. In all, the RUC recommended that the work
RVUs for 6 codes be reduced in value, for 15 codes be increased in
value, and for 35 codes be maintained at the current value.
HCFA Decision: We agree with the RUC on most of its findings, but
we have rejected the RUC recommendations for the following eight
integumentary system codes:
CPT codes 15570 through 15576 (Formation of direct or tubed
pedicle, with or without transfer).
There are four codes in this family that are used to report the
formation of direct or tubed pedicles in different body areas. We
received a comment that all of these codes are undervalued when
compared to the corresponding adjacent flap codes, CPT code 14001 with
7.78 work RVUs, CPT code 14021 with 9.37 work RVUs, and CPT code 14040
with 7.18 work RVUs.
In its recommendation to us, the RUC indicated that several old
codes, CPT codes 15500 through 15515, which were valued by Harvard,
were deleted in 1992 and replaced with CPT codes 15570 through 15576.
The RUC also noted that the new codes are misvalued and that no
explanation had been received describing how the work RVUs of these
codes were determined. The current survey results show median work RVUs
of 9.85 and a median intraservice time of 105 minutes for CPT code
15570; median work RVUs of 9.63 and a median intraservice time of 90
minutes for CPT code 15572; median work RVUs of 10.50 and a median
intraservice time of 120 minutes for CPT code 15574; and median work
RVUs of 8.50 and a median intraservice time of 90 minutes for CPT code
15576. These results agree with the Harvard data for the original
codes, CPT codes 15500 through 15515. Based on the survey results and
the lack of rationale for the current work RVUs, the RUC recommended
that the codes be valued at the same level established by Harvard for
the original deleted codes.
We have not accepted the RUC recommendations for two reasons.
First, the RUC's understanding of the source of the work RVUs for the
current codes is incorrect and second, we believe the vignettes that
were surveyed may have led to an overestimation of the work.
These four codes first appeared in CPT 1992, following a revision
of this section of CPT. The codes do not correspond directly to the
deleted codes (CPT codes 15500 through 15515) cited by the RUC because
other codes (CPT codes 15540 through 15555 and 15700 through 15730)
also were deleted and crosswalked to the new codes. Because we viewed
the coding change as significant, we did not accept the work RVUs
developed by Harvard for CPT codes 15500 through 15515 as a valid basis
for the new codes. We proposed work RVUs for the current CPT codes
15540 through 15555 in the November 25, 1991 final rule for the 1992
physician fee schedule (56 FR 59502). Because the comments that we
received suggested that the proposed work RVUs were too low, we
referred the codes to one of the multispecialty refinement panels that
met in May 1992. Based on the ratings of that panel, no changes were
made in the work RVUs, and they became final work RVUs effective
January 1, 1993.
The vignettes that were surveyed by the RUC describe patient
problems and services that we believe may have led to an overestimation
of the work involved in the formation of direct or tubed pedicles. For
example, the vignette for CPT code 15574 reads:
A 56-year-old hunter sustains a gun shot injury to his left
hand. He is brought to the hospital and initial debridement,
fracture stabilization and temporary wound cover is accomplished
with dressing changes. A tailored groin flap is planned for coverage
of the dorsal defect. At operation, a random patterned groin flap is
elevated. The hand is, again, thoroughly debrided and lavaged, and
the groin flap is placed. The abdominal wound is closed by primary
advancement of the abdominal skin. The postoperative care is routine
until either further delay or separation occurs.
The preservice work is described as including an assessment of the
patient in the emergency room. The intraservice work is described as
including the creation of a special dressing to maintain the relative
positions of the hand, the flap, and the abdominal wall. We are
concerned that the survey respondents may have considered the work of
debridement, fracture stabilization, initial emergency room evaluation,
and immobilization of the hand, flap, and abdomen in their estimates of
work. If so, the work RVUs are excessive because those other services
can be reported and paid separately. Therefore, we are maintaining the
current work RVUs.
CPT code 15580 (Cross finger flap, including free graft to donor
site).
We received a comment that this code is undervalued when compared
to CPT code 15240 (Skin full graft procedure) and CPT code 15100 (Skin
split graft procedure). It was argued that the current work RVUs do not
account for the intraservice time and work involved in harvesting and
applying the skin graft. Survey data showed a median intraservice time
of 90 minutes and median work RVUs of 9.00. The RUC recommended that
the work RVUs be increased based on the survey results and its
conclusion that the comparison to skin graft procedures was
appropriate.
We have not proposed a change in the work RVUs for this code
because we are concerned that CPT is not clear regarding the separate
reporting of a graft to the donor site, and the vignette may have led
to an overestimation of work. There is a note in the introductory
paragraphs for the flap codes that states: ``Repair of donor site
requiring skin graft or local flaps is considered an additional
separate procedure.'' This contradicts the terminology of CPT code
15580 and could be a source of confusion.
The vignette that was used in the survey reads: A 36-year-old
laborer sustains an avulsion injury of the volar aspect of the
middle of phalanx of the left index finger in a grinding machine.
The profundus tendon is intact and the neurovascular bundles are
intact. At operation, a cross finger pedicle flap from the dorsum of
the adjacent left middle phalanx is elevated and rotated downward
and placed on the volar aspect of the adjacent finger. The donor
site defect was reconstructed with a full thickness skin graft
harvested from the left groin. Both the pedicle and the skin graft
were sewn in place. The postoperative care is routine for that of a
split thickness skin graft.
[[Page 20020]]
The preservice work is described as including an assessment of the
patient in the emergency room. The description of the intraservice work
includes thorough debridement and immobilization of the fingers in a
specially constructed dressing to remove tension from the flap by
preventing motion.
We are concerned that the survey respondents may have considered
the work of debridement, initial emergency room evaluation, and
immobilization of the fingers in their estimates of work. If so, the
work RVUs are excessive because the other services can be reported
separately. Therefore, we are maintaining the current work RVUs.
CPT codes 17000, 17001, and 17002 (Destruction by any method of
benign facial or premalignant lesions in any location).
An individual who underwent the destruction of skin lesions
commented that the physician charges for these procedures were
excessive. He stated that the application of liquid nitrogen is not
time consuming and is an insignificant cost and that the physician work
involved is minimal and does not require great skill. We forwarded the
comment to the RUC. The specialty society recommended to the RUC that
the work RVUs for these codes be maintained.
The RUC responded by indicating that the intention of the RUC and
the 5-year review is to examine work RVUs. The RUC concluded that the
comment we forwarded was based on charges the commenter incurred, a
matter which is not directly related to the mission of the RUC.
Therefore, the RUC recommended that the current work RVUs be
maintained.
We acknowledge that part of the individual's comments related to
the charges he incurred. However, we believe that the commenter raised
a legitimate concern about the amount of physician work when he made
reference to the amount of time, physician involvement, and skill
required to destroy a skin lesion. Therefore, we reexamined the work
RVUs assigned to these codes and concluded they are too high when
compared to other services on the fee schedule. CPT code 17000
(Destruction of a single benign facial or premalignant lesion)
currently has work RVUs that are approximately 3.5 times higher than
the work RVUs assigned to the destruction of a second similar lesion
(CPT code 17001). There are no other services with such a variance. A
more appropriate valuation of CPT code 17000 would set the initial
lesion destruction at about twice the level of the work RVUs for a
subsequent lesion. Therefore, we are proposing 0.36 work RVUs. This
downward revaluation of CPT code 17000 is supported by comparing the
proposed work RVUs to the following reference services: CPT code 11700
(Debridement of nails), with 0.32 work RVUs, and CPT code 11050 (Paring
of skin lesion), with 0.43 work RVUs. These services are comparable to
CPT code 17000 in terms of setup time, procedure time, risk, and
aftercare.
We also believe that CPT code 17001 (Destruction of second and
third benign facial or premalignant lesion, each) and CPT code 17002
(Destruction of over three lesions, each additional lesion) are
overvalued. We propose to reduce the work RVUs of these codes to 0.14.
The proposed work RVUs for these codes would maintain approximately the
same ratio to CPT code 17101, with 0.11 work RVUs, and CPT code 17102,
also with 0.11 work RVUs, as CPT code 17000, with 0.64 work RVUs, now
has to CPT code 17100, with 0.53 work RVUs, that is, about 1.2. In
other words, we believe the current relative relationship of work RVUs
for the destruction of benign facial or premalignant lesions (CPT code
17000) to the work RVU for the destruction of benign lesions in areas
other than the face (CPT code 17100) is correct but the work RVUs are
too high.
Additionally, we are concerned that there is an inconsistency in
the current CPT coding for these two groups of codes. For benign non-
facial lesion destruction, CPT code 17104 is only reported once for any
number of lesions numbering 15 or more. There is not currently a
parallel code for benign facial or premalignant lesions, and there is
no limitation on the number of times CPT code 17002 can be reported for
lesions removed during a single visit. Also, we did not receive
comments on all of the destruction codes so we have not addressed in
this notice other destruction of skin lesion codes that appear to be
overvalued. We plan to address our concerns regarding the coding and
work RVUs for those services in the future.
2. Orthopaedic Surgery
Originally, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons submitted
a study of 1,300 orthopaedic services conducted by Abt Associates, Inc.
for review during the 5-year review. In addition, the American Academy
of Orthopaedic Surgeons submitted detailed comments on 41 procedures.
The Abt study involved a combination of a telephone survey of randomly
selected orthopaedic surgeons and multiple consensus panels comprised
of orthopaedic subspecialists and generalists. The American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons considered the work RVUs that resulted from the
study to be much more appropriately aligned than the current work RVUs.
In addition, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons believed that
the work RVUs in the current scale are compressed at both the low and
the high end, whereas the Abt values expand the scale in both
directions.
The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons stated that the
Harvard study underestimated the intraservice work of many of the
services its members furnish. The commenter was particularly concerned
that the work RVUs for many of the services are based on a survey of
general orthopaedic surgeons with little or no experience performing
highly specialized services normally provided by subspecialists within
orthopaedic surgery, such as pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. For
example, Harvard included general orthopaedic surgeons in the survey
for CPT code 28262 (Capsulotomy, midfoot; extensive, including
posterior talotibial capsulotomy and tendon(s) lengthening as for
resistant clubfoot deformity) while the American Academy of Orthopaedic
Surgeons surveyed pediatric orthopaedic surgeons with much more
experience performing the procedure. The American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons' survey confirmed that the Harvard study had
underestimated intraservice time.
The RUC reviewed the methodology used by Abt and concluded that the
RUC should consider a survey of representative codes using Abt's
methodology to validate the relationship of the Abt-developed work RVUs
to RUC-developed work RVUs. Instead, the American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons elected to withdraw the Abt study and the comments
on 41 codes. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons also elected
to conduct a survey of the work involved in 83 codes that it believed
were misvalued in accordance with the RUC process. The American Academy
of Orthopaedic Surgeons involved 11 national orthopaedic subspecialty
organizations in this survey.
The RUC reviewed and recommended increases in work RVUs for 37 of
the 83 codes presented by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
The RUC reviewed an additional 15 services based on comments from the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Society of Plastic and
Reconstructive Surgeons, and other commenters. In general, the RUC did
not accept recommendations for increased work RVUs when the American
Academy of
[[Page 20021]]
Orthopaedic Surgeons' survey time data were similar to Harvard data or
when the reference services cited were not appropriate. The RUC
recommended increased work RVUs to correct rank-order anomalies in
codes for which the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' surveys
confirm that the intraservice time for the procedure was underestimated
in the Harvard study and the patient population had changed in the past
5 years.
The RUC also reviewed and recommended decreases for 10 of the 12
following orthopaedic services, which the RUC identified as potentially
overvalued based on special analyses of trends in claims data and the
intensity (work per unit of time) of the intraservice work. This
intensity of intraservice work is expressed as IWPUT, which is an
acronym for intraservice work per unit time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPT
code Descriptor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25065.. Biopsy, soft tissue of forearm and/or wrist; superficial.
26992.. Incision, deep, with opening of bone cortex (e.g., for
osteomyelitis or bone abscess), pelvis and/or hip joint.
27001.. Tenotomy, adductor of hip, subcutaneous, open.
27003.. Tenotomy, adductor, subcutaneous, open, with obturator
neurectomy.
27006.. Tenotomy, adductors of hip, subcutaneous, open (separate
procedure).
27040.. Biopsy, soft tissue of pelvis and hip area; superficial.
27090.. Removal of hip prosthesis (separate procedure).
27265.. Closed treatment of post hip arthroplasty dislocation; without
anesthesia.
27266.. Closed treatment of post hip arthroplasty dislocation;
requiring regional or general anesthesia.
27323.. Biopsy, soft tissue of thigh or knee area; superficial.
27550.. Closed treatment of knee dislocation; without anesthesia.
64763.. Transection or avulsion of obturator nerve, extrapelvic, with
or without adductor tenotomy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The description of, and rationale for, these decreases is included
in section II.C.7. of this notice, which contains the discussion of the
entire group of services identified as potentially overvalued.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all of the RUC recommendations for
the orthopaedic surgery codes.
3. Otolaryngology and Maxillofacial Surgery
The American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, Inc.
submitted a study conducted for it by Abt Associates, Inc. that covered
800 codes, 417 of which are considered to be primary otolaryngology
codes, and 100 of which were discussed in detailed comments for the 5-
year review. The 100 codes represent approximately 10 percent of the
universe of otolaryngolog--head and neck surgery services. The comments
reflect the opinions of about 40 American Academy of Otolaryngology--
Head and Neck Surgery, Inc. members with expertise in the services
chosen. The American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons and the
American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, Inc. also
submitted comments and presented recommendations to the RUC for some of
the codes discussed in this section.
The RUC reviewed the methodology used by Abt and concluded that the
RUC should consider a survey of representative codes using RUC
methodology to validate the relationship of the Abt-developed work RVUs
to the RUC-developed work RVUs. The American Academy of
Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, Inc. surveyed and submitted
recommendations for 53 codes using the RUC methodology. The survey
response rate was low for many of the codes for which we originally
received comments during the public comment phase and, therefore, the
American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, Inc. chose
to withdraw these codes from the RUC review.
The RUC was concerned by the lack of compelling evidence for
changing many of the services presented by the American Academy of
Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, Inc. and recommended that their
current work RVUs be maintained. The RUC identified several problems
with these services: Survey results for preservice and postservice time
appeared to be overstated; inappropriate reference services with
different global periods were used; the only arguments were that the
patient population presented increased risk of HIV and hepatitis to the
physician, the patients had previous radiation treatment, and
acceptable vocal cord capability is now more important to patients. In
addition, commenters made many recommendations to increase the current
work RVUs, but the American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck
Surgery, Inc. data were very similar to the Harvard time data. The RUC
also did not find the argument that the IWPUT was understated, without
any other evidence, a compelling reason to increase the work RVUs.
The RUC recommended increased work RVUs for 30 codes to correct
rank-order anomalies, address problems when American Academy of
Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, Inc. surveys confirm that the
intraservice time for the procedure was underestimated in the Harvard
study, and when the patient population had changed in the past 5 years
making the services more complex.
HCFA decision: We have accepted the RUC recommendations for work
RVUs for 24 of the codes but have rejected its recommendations for the
following 6 codes: CPT code 21025 (Excision of bone, lower jaw).
The current work RVUs are 5.03. A commenter recommended an increase
to 8.98 work RVUs since this code is similar to CPT code 24134 (Removal
of arm bone lesion). The RUC noted that a rank anomaly exists between
this service and CPT code 21030 (Excision of benign tumor or cyst of
facial bone other than mandible) and CPT code 21041 (Excision of benign
cyst or tumor of mandible; complex). The American Academy of Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgeons' survey median for intraservice time is 120
minutes, which is significantly higher than CPT code 21041 and
reference service CPT code 24134. Thus, the RUC recommended that the
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons' survey median of
8.92 work RVUs be adopted.
We believe that the surveyed vignette does not represent the
typical patient, and it includes services for which other codes can be
reported. The vignette describes a patient with intraoral and extraoral
swelling and suppuration from multiple fistulae. Dissection of the
inferior alveolar nerve is required and hyperbaric oxygen is initiated.
We believe this vignette describes a patient with much more extensive
infection than the typical patient. It is also our view that CPT code
21030, which has 7.05 work RVUs, is more difficult than this procedure.
Therefore, we are retaining the current 5.03 work RVUs for CPT code
21025. CPT codes 31531, 31536, 31541, 31561, and 31571 (Operative
laryngoscopies).
We received comments that CPT codes 31541, 31561, and 31571 are
undervalued because of increased patient complexity and greater
emphasis on acceptable vocal results. The RUC did not find those
arguments compelling enough to suggest a change in work RVUs.
However, the RUC identified rank order anomalies in the work RVUs
for direct laryngoscopies and the corresponding procedures using an
operating microscope. Among the five
[[Page 20022]]
pairs of procedures, the difference in work RVUs for use of the
operating microscope varies from -0.57 to +0.34 work RVUs. The RUC
recommended retaining the 1995 work RVUs for the direct laryngoscopies
(CPT codes 31530, 31535, 31540, 31560, and 31570) and adding a constant
0.40 work RVUs to arrive at the work RVUs for the corresponding
procedures using an operating microscope (CPT codes 31531, 31536,
31541, 31561, and 31571).
We disagree with the concept of increasing the work RVUs for
procedures using an operating microscope and believe that the work RVUs
for a procedure generally should be the same, regardless of the
technique used. For example, the destruction of skin lesions (CPT codes
17000 through 17105) are valued the same regardless of the method of
destruction. Therefore, we have established work RVUs that are the same
for both codes in a pair.
4. Podiatry
The American Podiatric Medical Association submitted comments on
services that its members frequently perform that may be
inappropriately valued. The organization's comments were based on
surveys of the members of the organization representing the spectrum of
foot and ankle services, as well as geographic diversity. In addition,
the organization relied on data from two previous national surveys on
preservice and intraservice care prepared by the American Podiatric
Medical Association for the Physician Payment Review Commission.
The American Podiatric Medical Association submitted
recommendations to the RUC for review in two formats: surveyed services
with completed summary of recommendation forms and a letter detailing
rationale for those services they did not survey. The Association also
commented on 13 codes that it considers to be overvalued.
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: The RUC's position was that the
American Podiatric Medical Association had not provided compelling
evidence for changing the work RVUs for any of the services for which
no survey was conducted. Neither did the RUC find surveys that only
confirmed the Harvard survey times to be sufficient evidence to justify
change. However, the survey data for CPT codes 28113 and 28288 and
HCPCS code M0101 persuaded the RUC to recommend increases in the work
RVUs for these services. The RUC also did not concur with the American
Podiatric Medical Association's comment about overvalued procedures and
recommended that the current work RVUs be maintained.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all but one of the RUC's 20
recommendations for podiatry (19 resulting from the American Podiatric
Medical Association's comments and one to maintain a rank order between
codes): HCPCS code M0101 (Cutting or removal of corns).
The current work RVUs are 0.37. A commenter recommended that we
increase the work RVUs to 0.70 based on the view that this service is
significantly more difficult than the work for CPT code 11050 (Paring
or curettement of benign hyperkeratotic skin lesion with or without
chemical cauterization (such as verrucae or clavi) not extending
through the stratum corneum (e.g., callus or wart) with or without
local anesthesia; single lesion), which is valued at 0.43 work RVUs,
and CPT code 11700 (Debridement of nails, manual; five or less), which
is valued at 0.32 work RVUs. The preservice work is slightly greater
than reference procedures CPT codes 11050 and 11700, but the
intraservice work was reported by a survey as 250 percent greater than
either reference procedure. The commenter stated that the technical
skill for these services is similar; however, physical effort is much
greater for HCPCS code M0101. The RUC agreed that HCPCS code M0101
involves more work than treating 2 skin lesions and trimming 10
toenails and that this service is undervalued. It proposed 0.45 work
RVUs. We disagree with these proposed work RVUs. The description of
this service is ``cutting or removal of corns, calluses and/or trimming
of nails, application of skin creams and other hygienic and preventive
maintenance care (excludes debridement of nail(s).''
We believe that the service most reported by this code is trimming
of nails, which is of less intensity than the work associated with
cutting or removal of corns and calluses. The typical service involves
the less intense portions of this complex definition. The surveys
conducted by the American Podiatric Medical Association used vignettes
of patients with circulatory impairment and neurologic deficit
accompanying systemic disease. The existence of these comorbid
conditions may not accurately reflect the work RVUs for the typical
patient. Although current Medicare coverage is restricted to the more
difficult patients with coexisting disease, we base the work RVUs on
the typical patient. The RUC survey methodology is based on vignettes
that are intended to describe the typical patient and service. In this
case, we believe the vignette describes an unusual or atypical patient
which results in an RVU recommendation that exceeds the current work
RVUs. We believe that the usual service of trimming of nails is less
work than the paring or curettement of other less common procedures
such as benign hyperkeratotic skin lesions and, therefore, have decided
to maintain the current 0.37 work RVUs.
5. Cardiology and Interventional Radiology
The RUC considered comments submitted by the Society of
Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, the Society of Critical
Care Medicine, and the American College of Cardiology on 25 cardiology
and interventional radiology procedures.
The Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology reported
to the RUC that it did not conduct a RUC survey. The Society of
Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology sent a survey containing
all of the interventional radiology codes to 60 interventional
radiologists that asked the physicians to evaluate the 1995 work RVUs
for each code and select those codes that they believed were misvalued.
For the codes selected, the respondents were instructed to indicate
which CPT code they believed more accurately described the service in
terms of time and intensity. These responses were evaluated by a small
working group formed by the Society of Cardiovascular and
Interventional Radiology consisting of physicians that are familiar
with CPT, work RVUs, and the RUC process. Those codes that were
identified by the working group as misvalued were the codes upon which
that society commented. In its comments to us and during the RUC
presentation, the Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional
Radiology mentioned that the physician work for vascular ultrasound
studies is equal to all other diagnostic ultrasound services, including
those in the abdomen, chest, pelvis, retroperitoneum, and heart. The
work RVU recommendations are based on work RVUs for either ``limited''
or ``complete'' ultrasound examinations in those areas.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all but two of the RUC
recommendations for the cardiology and interventional radiology codes:
CPT codes 93307 and 93312, both for echo exam of heart.
CPT code 93307 (Echocardiography, real-time with image
documentation (2D) with or without M-Mode recording; complete).
We received a comment that the field of echocardiography has
changed significantly in the past 5 years, in both
[[Page 20023]]
clinical utility and diagnostic complexity. Although the technical
innovations of the past 5 years have made this an easier service to
perform, the patients that require this service are more complex, which
has resulted in an increased amount of physician work. The physicians
are viewing and making judgments on constantly moving objects, which
increases the possibility of misinterpretation. Often this service is
furnished in acute care settings or emergency situations, which
increase physician stress. The information derived from this study is
used in the development of critical management decisions. The risk of
misdiagnosis, in both emergent and nonemergent situations, can lead to
potentially fatal events.
The current work RVUs for echocardiography are 0.78. The RUC agreed
that the code is undervalued based on the amount of physician work that
is required to perform this study and the increased amount of
information that can now be derived from echocardiography. However, the
RUC believed that the specialty society recommendation of 1.48 work
RVUs was too high and recommended the Harvard value for this procedure,
which was 1.06 work RVUs.
We do not agree that echocardiography is undervalued. We believe
that technical innovations have made physician interpretations of
echocardiograms less difficult than in the past. We also believe that
some of the work that is being reported as physician work is actually
the work of technicians. For example, the description of intraservice
work provided to the RUC implies that physicians review entire tapes
and analyze and measure the structure and dynamics of the chambers,
valves, and great vessels. It is our understanding that much of this
information is prepared by technicians for subsequent review by
physicians. We consider the work of technicians to be a practice
expense that is reflected in the practice expense RVUs, not the
physician work RVUs. We also question whether the vignette surveyed by
the specialty society, which describes an echocardiogram performed on
an acutely ill patient in need of emergency echocardiography,
represents the typical patient requiring echocardiography. Medicare
claims data from calendar year 1995 indicate that 50 percent of claims
for CPT code 93307 are billed with place of service as office or
outpatient hospital and 49 percent are billed with place of service as
inpatient hospital. This suggests that the typical patient is not
critically ill or that there is a bimodal distribution of patients.
CPT code 93312 (Echocardiography, real-time with image
documentation (2D) (with or without M-Mode recording), transesophageal;
including probe placement, image acquisition, interpretation and
report).
We received a comment that transesophageal echocardiography is
undervalued in comparison to other services that require similar
physician work effort and that performance of this procedure requires
considerable mental effort. As described above in the discussion of CPT
code 93307, the heart is constantly moving, increasing the possibility
of misinterpretation, which could lead to misdiagnosis. There is an
added technical skill required by the physician to insert the probe
into the esophagus and the stomach of a critically ill patient. This
procedure is often performed in the emergency setting while the patient
is under conscious sedation. As a point of reference, the RUC reviewed
Harvard Phase III data that show 2.76 work RVUs (adjusted to be on a
scale equivalent to 1995 work RVUs) for upper gastrointestinal
endoscopy (CPT code 43235), the reference code being used in this
comparison. These work RVUs are higher than both the existing 1.57 work
RVUs and the 2.39 work RVUs recommended by the specialty society. The
RUC agreed with the specialty society rationale and recommended an
increase to 2.39 work RVUs.
For reasons similar to those described above for CPT code 93307, we
do not believe that transesophageal echocardiography is undervalued.
This service was considered by a refinement panel in 1993, and, based
on the ratings of the panel, the RVUs were not increased. We do not
find the new evidence submitted by the RUC to be sufficient to warrant
an increase in RVUs.
6. General Surgery, Colon and Rectal Surgery, and Gastroenterology
The review of general surgery procedures primarily addressed
comments submitted by the American College of Surgeons on codes
identified as misvalued through a study conducted by Abt Associates,
Inc. Although this study identified many procedures as potentially
misvalued, the American College of Surgeons' comments selected only 30
codes for review, based on the magnitude of the potential change and
their frequency and expenditures. The American College of Surgeons
recommended both increases and decreases.
The American Society of General Surgeons also submitted comments on
a number of procedures, including several general surgery procedures,
and their suggestions were consistent with some of those made by the
American College of Surgeons.
The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons submitted
comments indicating that the partial colectomy codes and
hemorrhoidectomy codes should be reviewed to place them in a more
correct rank-order from least to most difficult. Other commenters also
identified rank-order problems in these families and further identified
three overvalued procedures. The American Society of General Surgeons
recommended that the work RVUs for several colon and rectal procedures
be increased.
Comments were submitted by the American College of Gastroenterology
and another commenter on several gastroenterology codes.
Of the 30 codes on which the American College of Surgeons
commented, the RUC recommended adopting most of the recommended
decreases and a few of the recommended increases, based on results from
a survey of 175 surgeons, comparisons to the final Harvard study
results, comparisons to key reference services, and analysis of
Medicare claims data.
The current work RVUs for several of the codes identified by the
American Society of General Surgeons, however, are based on recent RUC
recommendations, and, in the absence of new evidence, the RUC did not
believe reconsideration was warranted for these codes.
The RUC agreed with most of the changes recommended by the American
Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons based on the evidence provided by
the Society.
The RUC did not believe compelling new evidence had been provided
to support either an increase or a decrease in the work RVUs for the
gastroenterology codes on which the American College of
Gastroenterology commented. The RUC has previously reviewed most work
RVUs for the gastroenterology procedures and has recently considered
the evidence for adjusting these work RVUs and did not find the
evidence to be persuasive.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all but one of the RUC
recommendations for general surgery, colon and rectal surgery, and
gastroenterology codes: CPT code 43830 (Place gastrostomy tube).
The current work RVUs are 4.84. A commenter noted that an anomaly
exists
[[Page 20024]]
between CPT code 43750 (Place gastrotomy tube), which is assigned 5.71
work RVUs, and CPT code 43830 since the latter procedure is more
complex. The commenter recommended 7.50 work RVUs. The RUC noted that
the Harvard data indicate that the IWPUT for CPT code 43750 is 0.082,
while it is 0.059 for CPT code 43830. Since CPT code 43830 is much more
complex than CPT code 43750, the IWPUT is the reverse of the
appropriate relationship. The RUC recommended 7.50 work RVUs for CPT
code 43830.
We relied on Harvard work RVUs to reestablish the proper
relationship by accepting the decrease recommended by the RUC for CPT
code 43750 and increasing CPT code 43830 to 6.52 work RVUs. We rejected
the RUC recommendation of 7.50 work RVUs for CPT code 43830 as too high
since this recommendation would value placement of a gastronomy tube
higher than CPT code 49507 (Repair of an inguinal hernia), which is
assigned 7.40 work RVUs and appear to approximate the work of placing a
gastrostomy tube.
7. Urology
Commenters advocated reductions in about 40 urology-related CPT
codes. In most cases, commenters based their rationale on comparisons
to cross-specialty procedures. Work RVUs were reduced to the level of
the work RVUs of the cross-specialty procedure. The commenters also
attempted to link the reduction of one code in a family to other codes
in an effort to maintain the reduction of work RVUs throughout the
family. Typically, the response of the American Urological Association
was to survey the code and to refute the cross-specialty link
established by the commenters. The rationale established by the
American Urological Association was generally compelling in that it was
based on anatomical, technical, and patient-population differences that
proved the cross-specialty comparisons to be faulty. Usually, the
American Urological Association's arguments were supported by survey
data that validated their claims when compared to Harvard data. In many
instances, surveyed intraservice time was greater than the Harvard data
showed, and work RVUs turned out to be greater than established 1995
work RVUs.
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: The RUC examined the American
Urological Association's arguments against the cross-specialty links
and proposed work RVU reductions. They evaluated the aspects of the
arguments and typically came to the conclusion that the reference
procedures chosen for comparison by the commenters were inappropriate.
The RUC also analyzed survey data to determine if time and complexity
measures were sufficient to support the arguments of the American
Urological Association. The RUC also looked at time and complexity
gains to ascertain if increased work RVUs were necessary. The basis for
many of the comments was comparison between urology codes and codes in
other specialties. As part of its review, the RUC compared several
urology codes to other procedures on its multiple points of comparison
reference set based on the IWPUT. The urology codes proved to be well
within expected levels. For example, CPT code 50010 (Exploration of
kidney) has an IWPUT of 0.094, which compares to CPT code 93510 (Left
heart catheterization), with an IWPUT of 0.099; CPT code 26531 (Revise
knuckle with implant), with an IWPUT of 0.090; CPT code 66984 (Remove
cataract, insert lens), with an IWPUT of 0.121; or CPT code 61700
(Inner skull vessel surgery), with an IWPUT of 0.088. CPT code 54200
(Treatment of penis lesion) has an IWPUT of 0.038, which compares to
CPT code 11642 (Removal of skin lesion), with an IWPUT of 0.047; CPT
code 45110 (Removal of rectum), with an IWPUT of 0.061; or CPT code
46260 (Hemorrhoidectomy), with an IWPUT of 0.049. Generally, the RUC
found that the recommended reductions were not appropriate, but that
rationale and data were also not sufficiently compelling to support
specialty-recommended increased work RVUs. As a result, the RUC
recommended that 37 of the 46 codes be maintained at 1995 levels.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all but three of the RUC
recommendations for the urology codes: CPT code 50205 (Biopsy of
kidney).
The current work RVUs are 12.69. A commenter recommended a decrease
to 6.75 work RVUs since the procedure requires no more work, time, or
effort than CPT code 47100 (Wedge biopsy of liver), which is assigned
6.75 work RVUs. In addition, the commenter argued, this procedure is
incorrectly valued relative to kidney exploration; the biopsy should be
lower than an exploration. The RUC noted that most renal biopsies are
not open but percutaneous procedures; however, CPT code 50205 is an
open procedure. Survey data show median intraservice time of 75 minutes
and median work RVUs of 18.50. Although the American Urological
Association recommended increasing the work RVUs up to the survey
median, the RUC found no compelling evidence to increase the work RVUs.
We rejected the RUC recommendation to retain the current work RVUs
and have assigned 10.50 work RVUs, a value slightly greater than CPT
code 50010 (Exploration of the kidney) to reflect the added work of the
open procedure biopsy.
CPT code 50590 (Lithotripsy, extracorporeal shock wave).
The current work RVUs are 9.62. A commenter recommended a reduction
to 6.54 work RVUs based on an argument that this is not a surgical
procedure. The commenter compared the intraservice work to 1 hour of
critical care. The proposed work RVUs also include two hospital visits
(CPT codes 99221 and 99231) and 2.5 level-three office visits (CPT
99213). The RUC believed that this procedure is similar to a surgical
procedure in that anesthesia is used and a urologist is always present.
The RUC concluded that the current work RVUs should not be reduced
based on its analysis of survey data showing a median intraservice time
of 80 minutes.
We disagree with the RUC recommendation to maintain the 9.62 work
RVUs. We believe the intraservice intensity of extracorporeal shock
wave lithotripsy is more comparable to evaluation and management
services than traditional surgical services. For example, the current
9.62 work RVUs are higher than those for an exploratory laparotomy (CPT
code 49000), with 8.99 work RVUs. We have assigned 7.13 work RVUs to
CPT code 50590 based on 90 minutes of critical care (CPT codes 99291
and 99292), with work RVUs of 3.64 and 1.84, respectively, and three
mid-level office visits (CPT code 99213), with 0.55 work RVUs.
CPT code 51741 (Electro-uroflowmetry, first).
The current work RVUs are 1.57. A commenter recommended a reduction
to 1.14 work RVUs to bring the code into correct alignment with the
family of codes. The RUC recommended no change in the current work
RVUs. We believe that a reduction in work RVUs to 1.14 is appropriate
to maintain the proper relationship to CPT code 51736 (Urine flow
measurement), which the RUC reduced from 0.84 work RVUs to 0.61 work
RVUs.
8. Gynecology
Comment: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
has had significant and longstanding concerns about the accuracy of the
work RVUs assigned for obstetric and gynecologic services. The American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists believed that the work RVUs
for services furnished to women have been historically undervalued when
[[Page 20025]]
compared to similar services on men or on similar anatomical
structures. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
presented survey data and arguments for 45 codes, 44 of which
recommended increased work RVUs. In addition to providing survey data,
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists developed
rationales based on a ``building block'' method using survey data on
service characteristics and work RVUs of established codes. The
building block method also uses preservice, postservice, and
intraservice work intervals to assign physician work RVUs to the
individual components of the global surgical services package.
Appropriate work RVUs for preservice and postservice intervals for the
evaluation and management services were selected based on length of
time, number of visits, clinical setting, and judgment of level of care
required. Using this method, the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists was able to arrive at work RVU estimates for surgical
codes with a variety of global periods.
The survey data in almost every case supported an increase in work
RVUs. The surveys had a minimum survey sample size of 100 and response
rates in excess of 30 percent. The surveyed intraservice times were
consistently substantially greater than Harvard intraservice times. The
work RVUs that were derived from a survey were in every case greater
than the established work RVUs. When the building block method was
used, it produced results that confirmed the survey data and argued for
increased work RVUs. The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists used cross-specialty comparisons to validate both survey
data and its building block method. Cross-specialty comparisons were
especially convincing when direct parallels could be drawn to similar
services on men or similar procedures to manage like disease in
different organs.
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: The RUC found the multiple
independent points of validation convincing. The survey, building
block, and cross-specialty comparisons typically supported the claim
for increased work RVUs. Generally, the RUC was skeptical of the
building block approach. The RUC believed that there was too much room
for subjective selection of the type and level of evaluation and
management services. The RUC also recognized that double counting and
overestimation of work components may yield results for which the sum
of the parts exceeds the whole. Typically, the RUC accepted the lowest
work RVU increase generated by the three methods.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all of the RUC recommendations for
the gynecology codes.
9. Neurosurgery
Comment: The American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress
of Neurological Surgeons submitted comments identifying 73 misvalued
services, both undervalued and overvalued. The comments presented a
detailed history of the work RVUs for neurosurgery, identifying several
problems in the methodology and results of the original Harvard study,
particularly in the change from intraoperative work to total work in
the cross-specialty linkage process and in review by refinement panels.
The commenter attributed the basic problem to the Harvard cross-
specialty linkage process, arguing that it caused distortions and
compressions of work RVUs within the neurosurgery services. Although
this was corrected to some degree in Phase III of the Harvard study,
the 1992 refinement panels did not accept many of the final Harvard
numbers for neurosurgical procedures. Even the final Harvard data
contain errors in data on postservice work, and the study often does
not assume any intensive care unit visits when at least several would
be furnished by the neurosurgeon.
Most of the arguments presented focus on the nontemporal components
of physician work, described as ``intensity.'' The commenters explained
that the current work RVUs do not accurately reflect the varying levels
of intensity for different neurosurgical procedures, nor within the
different components of each service. To identify the specific codes
that are misvalued in the current scale, the American Association of
Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons conducted a
survey in 1994. This organization surveyed a representative sample of
200 neurosurgeons to evaluate in detail the time and intensity of the
key reference services for neurosurgery in accordance with our
discussion of the nature and format of comments on work RVUs that
appeared in our December 8, 1994 final rule (59 FR 63454 to 63455). The
survey did not ask physicians to reevaluate the total work RVUs for
these procedures. The time data gathered from this study, which
included detailed operative logs on over 1,500 neurosurgical patients,
were found to correspond closely to the final Harvard Phase III data,
and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of
Neurological Surgeons concluded that the survey validated the Harvard
results for this component of work. The study also attempted to
directly measure mental effort and judgment, technical skill and
physical effort, and psychological stress, rather than calculating it
as a ratio of work to time. This allowed for more variation within each
component of intensity and greater precision in calculating work RVUs.
This research confirmed the problems initially identified by the
American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological
Surgeons that, for some of the most complex procedures, preservice and
postservice work were underestimated by 30 to 40 percent.
The focus of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/
Congress of Neurological Surgeons' comments was on appropriately
valuing the codes within neurosurgery by adjusting the rank-orders
upwards and downwards. To develop its recommendations to the RUC, the
American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological
Surgeons conducted a second survey in 1995, which led the RUC to make
some adjustments in the recommended work RVUs. In addition, the
American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological
Surgeons identified five more misvalued codes that had not been
mentioned in its original comments.
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: The RUC evaluated the approach used
to calculate the recommended work RVUs and considered it to be
reasonable. There was some discussion of ``lumping'' vs. ``splitting,''
because the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of
Neurological Surgeons' methodology of measuring intensity ``splits'' it
out from overall work. On the other hand, the time periods used by the
American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological
Surgeons were the same as those used by Harvard, and the time estimates
were based on objective data, not on surgeons' opinions about how much
time they spend doing each component of work. In fact, for a number of
the services studied by the American Association of Neurological
Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons, the resulting work RVUs
tended to validate the final work RVUs from the Harvard study. For
example, CPT code 61480 (Craniectomy, suboccipital; for mesencephalic
tractotomy or pedunculotomy) currently has 16.77 work RVUs, but the
final Harvard work RVUs for the service are 25.55, and the neurosurgery
study
[[Page 20026]]
produced a recommended 25.03 work RVUs.
The effort appeared to the RUC more as an attempt to bring a higher
degree of precision to the work RVUs for neurosurgery than to split
work into more components in order to inflate the work RVUs. The
recommended reductions in some higher frequency codes bolstered this
perception (for example, CPT code 63030 (Laminotomy (hemilaminectomy),
with decompression of nerve root(s), including partial facetectomy,
foraminotomy and/or excision of herniated intervertebral disk; one
interspace, lumbar) was reduced from 12.11 to 11.10 work RVUs and had a
frequency of 29,103 in 1994). In addition, a number of very low
frequency services, including some pediatric codes, were included in
the analysis and recommendations (for example, CPT code 61480
(Craniectomy, suboccipital; for mesencephalic tractotomy or
pedunculotomy), which had zero claims in 1994). Services that are both
highly specialized and very infrequently furnished may not have
received sufficient attention in the Harvard study.
To evaluate the results of this approach, the RUC workgroup, which
included a general surgeon, an ophthalmologist, and a psychiatrist,
first selected a number of the codes and calculated two ratios: (1)
recommended total work RVUs/intraservice time, and (2) recommended
total work RVUs/total time. The results of this analysis were very
consistent with one another and with other codes with work RVUs, with
nearly all of the codes having a ratio of work RVUs to total time of
about 0.05 and ratios of work RVUs to intraservice work time of 0.10 to
0.14. The highest intraservice work ratio was 0.178 for CPT code 61700
(Surgery of intracranial aneurysm, intracranial approach; carotid
circulation), with 48.30 recommended work RVUs. The results were
considered appropriate because of the extremely complex and difficult
nature of the service, when compared both to other codes within the
family of intracranial vascular codes and to other major neurosurgical
services.
The RUC then selected several of the codes for comparison with
codes on the multiple points of comparison with which they were
familiar:
CPT code 61682 (Surgery of intracranial arteriovenous
malformation; supratentorial, complex), with 59.47 recommended work
RVUs, was compared with CPT code 33870 (Transverse aortic arch graft),
which has 37.74 work RVUs. This service involves the surgical efforts
to obliterate and remove a congenital vascular malformation from within
the brain, frequently deep within a cerebral hemisphere. Many of the
issues that contribute to the high complexity of CPT code 61700 also
apply to this service, although preservice and postservice work
complexity is somewhat lower. This service requires 420 minutes of
intraoperative time, however, compared to 270 minutes for CPT code
61700.
CPT code 67107 (Repair of retinal detachment), with 13.99
work RVUs, was compared to CPT code 61875 (Implantation of
neurostimulator electrodes), with 13.79 recommended work RVUs. The
intraservice work ratio for retinal detachment is 0.13 and the total
work ratio is 0.049; for the neurosurgery code the intraservice work
ratio is 0.115 and the total work ratio is 0.04. The ratio comparisons
and the work and time involved in each service appear to be correct.
CPT code 67107 involves 107 minutes of intraoperative time, and CPT
code 61875 involves 120 minutes of intraoperative time. The final
Harvard work RVUs for CPT code 61875 are 14.06.
The comparison of CPT code 61702 (Surgery of intracranial
aneurysm), with 46.31 recommended work RVUs, to CPT code 48150 (Partial
removal of pancreas), with 42.53 work RVUs, also seems correct, since
CPT code 61702 involves surgery of a vertebral or basilar artery
aneurysm and has the same high levels of mental effort, technical
skill, and stress/risk outlined above for CPT code 61700.
The RUC concluded that the neurosurgery study produced work RVU
recommendations that are considerably more precise than the current
work RVUs for these services.
Three of the codes surveyed by the American Association of
Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons were also the
subject of other comments and were therefore reviewed individually by
the RUC:
For CPT code 61791 (Creation of lesion by stereotactic
method, percutaneous, by neurolytic agent (e.g., alcohol, thermal,
electrical, radiofrequency); trigeminal medullary tract) with 7.29 work
RVUs, the commenters recommended an increase to 13.29 work RVUs because
the service is substantially more difficult than CPT code 61790, which
is the same service performed on the gasserian ganglion, with 10.31
work RVUs. The RUC recommended a somewhat higher increase to 13.99 work
RVUs rather than the 13.29 work RVUs recommended by commenters. The
Harvard work RVUs for this service are 14.28.
For CPT code 62290 (Injection procedure for diskography,
each level; lumbar), with 3.58 work RVUs, we received a comment
recommending a reduction to 2.05 work RVUs, which would be 25 percent
more than the work RVUs for CPT code 62289 (Injection of substance
other than anesthetic, antispasmodic, contrast, or neurolytic
solutions; lumbar or caudal epidural (separate procedure)). The
American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological
Surgeons argued that CPT code 62289 is a poor reference for CPT code
62290 because the techniques are not very comparable and the targets
and risks are different. The RUC agreed with this argument. The
American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological
Surgeons stated that CPT code 62291 (Injection procedure for
diskography, each level; cervical), with 2.91 work RVUs, is a better
reference. The specialty society stated that CPT code 62290 should be
reduced from 3.58 to 3.00 work RVUs to allow for the fact that lumbar
diskography is inherently more difficult than cervical diskography and
still maintain the correct rank-order of the current work RVUs.
For CPT code 64443 (Injection, anesthetic agent;
paravertebral facet joint nerve, lumbar, each additional level), with
1.35 work RVUs, commenters recommended the code be valued at 50 percent
of CPT code 64442 (Injection, anesthetic agent; paravertebral facet
joint nerve, lumbar, single level) because it is an add-on code and
does not involve preservice and postservice work. Although the general
rule is that about 50 percent of the work is intraservice work and 50
percent is preservice and postservice work, this, however, does not
hold true for many minor procedures. In fact, the work RVUs for CPT
code 64443 were already reduced significantly when the global period
was changed in 1994. For these two codes (CPT code 64442 and CPT code
64443), the ratio is approximately 61 percent. The RUC recommended,
therefore, that the work RVUs for CPT code 64443 be reduced to 0.98
from 1.35, but not to 0.78, as recommended by the commenter.
The RUC believed it is important to add all of the codes identified
by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of
Neurological Surgeons to the 5-year review in order to have correct
rank-ordering of codes across neurosurgical procedures. In addition,
the RUC considered recommending that all the neurosurgery codes in the
5-year review be rescaled so that the net effect of the changes in work
RVUs would be zero to make the
[[Page 20027]]
changes work-neutral. Although the American Association of Neurological
Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons recommended changes in a
very large number of codes, the overall impact of the recommendations
is relatively small. An AMA analysis using 1994 frequency data found
that acceptance of the recommended changes would only increase Medicare
expenditures by about $3.8 million. The RUC recommended, therefore,
that all the suggested changes be adopted without any rescaling.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all but one of the RUC
recommendations for the neurosurgery codes: CPT code 61793
(Stereotactic focused proton beam or gamma radiosurgery).
The RUC recommended an increase in work RVUs from 16.70 to 17.88.
We disagree with this recommendation, which is based in large part on a
calculation of the intraservice time components by the American
Association of Neurological Surgeons rather than on the surveyed time.
The calculated time was 210 minutes, while the surveyed time was 120
minutes. We are concerned that the calculated intraservice time
includes specific elements that are described and reported by codes in
the radiation oncology section of CPT. For example, the calculated time
includes 15 minutes for ``stereotactic images processed by dose
planning computer using dose planning module for optimal dosimetry''
and 15 minutes for ``planned dose tested in radiosurgical device to
assure correct targeting and dosimetry.'' In view of our concern, we
have decided to maintain the current 16.70 work RVUs.
10. Ophthalmology
The American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American Optometric
Association responded to comments requesting that the work RVUs for 11
cataract-related codes be reduced. In addition, the American Academy of
Ophthalmology surveyed several codes and recommended work RVU
increases. Arguments supporting increased work RVUs relied on surveys,
comparisons to cross-specialty codes, and rationale claiming that
procedures have changed and now require adjusted work RVUs. The
response rates and resulting samples were of sufficient size to produce
valid results.
Generally, the RUC found the data, comparisons, and arguments
convincing. The RUC was looking for compelling evidence that the
procedure had changed, the patient population had changed, or the code
had been originally undervalued or overvalued. When the RUC recommended
different work RVUs, it typically attempted to reconcile new survey
data and rationale with Harvard data. This approach produced final
recommended work RVUs below those recommended by the specialty society.
In all, the RUC proposed that the work RVUs be reduced for 7 codes,
increased for 12 codes, and maintained at the current value for 29
codes.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all but one of the RUC
recommendations for the ophthalmology codes: CPT code 66821 (Discission
of secondary membranous cataract (opacified posterior lens capsule and/
or anterior hyaloid); laser surgery (e.g., YAG laser) (one or more
stages)).
We referred a comment to the RUC which stated that this service is
overvalued and that the work RVUs should be reduced to 2.30. The basis
of this recommendation was that the technical skill and intensity of
work for CPT code 66821 are significantly lower than for CPT code 66820
(Incision, secondary cataract). In addition, the intraservice time is
less, and the number of outpatient visits during the global period are
fewer.
The RUC reviewed the survey data which showed a median intraservice
time of 11 minutes and median work RVUs of 3.42. The intraservice skill
and complexity were considered to be comparable to those of CPT code
66761 (Revision of iris) and CPT code 67031 (Laser surgery, eye
strands). The RUC concluded that the survey data and comparisons were
sufficiently compelling to reject the commenter's recommended decrease
in work RVUs. The RUC recommended that the current work RVUs be
maintained.
We disagree. On a related matter, we had forwarded a comment to the
RUC that the cataract codes were overvalued because the procedures
typically can be performed in a shorter period of time than the 54
minutes in the Harvard data. However, we accepted the surveyed median
intraservice time of 50 minutes presented to the RUC for cataract
surgery as the basis for not reducing the work RVUs. Applying the
intraservice work intensity of the cataract procedure (CPT code 66984)
to the 11 minutes of surveyed intraservice time for the YAG laser
procedure results in 2.15 work RVUs, which we are proposing for CPT
code 66821. We believe this comparison is appropriate because we do not
believe that the intensity of a YAG laser procedure is greater than the
intensity of a cataract extraction.
For information on eye visit codes, see the discussion of the
evaluation and management codes in section II.C.1. of this notice.
11. Imaging
The RUC considered public comments submitted by the American
College of Radiology, the American College of Cardiology, and the
Society for Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. The American
College of Radiology cited nine radiology codes that it believed are
misvalued. The American College of Radiology noted that a
multidisciplinary approach was used to identify these nine procedures.
Specifically, radiologists in each specialty of radiology were asked to
review the procedures they perform and determine whether or not the
work RVUs reflect the difficulty of the procedure. A multidisciplinary
panel of radiologists and the American College of Radiology Commission
on Economics then reviewed the selected procedures. The panel
determined that it could present an adequate case for reconsideration
of the work RVUs for these nine procedures.
We received many comments which generally stated that radiology
codes were overvalued. The most common reasons given were the
following: Plain film studies are relatively overvalued compared to
more complex radiographic procedures; ultrasound studies are
overvalued; and the most common computerized axial tomography and
magnetic resonance imaging studies are overvalued. A comment also
suggested that plain film studies appeared overvalued relative to
evaluation and management services. Other comments suggested that
simple planar procedures such as aortography should be decreased to
equate the readings of these films with equivalent noncontrast studies;
magnetic resonance imaging should be revalued to reflect easier
interpretations with contrast material; and both magnetic resonance
imaging and computerized axial tomography scans should be similar for
all anatomic locations.
As part of its report outlining the work RVU recommendations to the
RUC, the American College of Radiology prepared a comprehensive
rebuttal of the comments. Specifically, the American College of
Radiology noted that the current physician work RVUs for plain film
studies accurately reflect the work involved in the procedure and,
therefore, should be maintained. Contrary to the comments, the RUC
concluded, plain film studies are not overvalued relative to more
complex radiographic studies. The American College of Radiology survey
data supported the fact that the
[[Page 20028]]
interpretation of plain film studies requires more time than the
evaluation and management CPT code 99212 (Office/outpatient visit,
established patient) to which those studies were most often compared.
The RUC also recommended that the current work RVUs assigned to
codes involving the use of contrast material should be retained since
they require more physician work than those not involving the use of
contrast. When contrast is used, physicians must interpret more images,
with a concomitant increase in work. Time data and intensity analysis
prepared by the American College of Radiology confirm the fact that the
current work RVUs for computerized axial tomography scans reflect the
physician work involved. The American College of Radiology also noted
that the number of images varies by the site that is being imaged
during a computerized axial tomography scan, which rebuts the
commenters' notion that the work RVUs for this scan be the same
regardless of site. The American College of Radiology reported that the
presence of contrast material increases the physician work of magnetic
resonance imaging since the physician must visualize the anatomy in
greater detail, therefore, increasing the complexity of the
interpretation.
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: The RUC believed that extensive
evidence presented by the American Society of Radiology compellingly
supported maintaining the current work RVUs. The RUC agreed with all of
the recommended changes based on evidence that was presented by the
American College of Radiology. For the codes that were presented by the
Society for Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, although the
RUC agreed that the services were undervalued, the RUC did not believe
that the Society for Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology
presented compelling evidence for the requested increases. Instead, the
RUC suggested increased work RVUs, but lower than the specialty society
recommended.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all of the RUC recommendations for
the imaging codes.
12. Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery
The American Society of General Surgeons and the Society of
Thoracic Surgeons stated that the Harvard study did not appropriately
value lung procedures. In particular, the commenters stated that the
Harvard study had estimated, rather than directly measured, preservice
and postservice times and that the current RVUs do not reflect the
physician work involved in maintaining proper hemodynamics during
initiation of anesthesia, stabilizing the patient for transfer to the
recovery room, and accumulating sufficient evidence that immediate
reoperation or other intervention for bleeding, impaired circulation,
or air leak is not needed. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons also
commented on several cardiac operations that it believed have become
more complex over time and recommended slight increases in 11 coronary
artery bypass graft procedures.
Generally, the RUC did not consider evidence that the Society of
Thoracic Surgeons provided sufficiently compelling to support increases
in the work RVUs for the thoracic procedures identified in its comment.
Also, the RUC has already reviewed most of these services, and any
changes in work since the Harvard study would have been reflected in
the RUC's 1993 recommendations. However, the RUC agreed that increases
were warranted in two of the cardiac surgery procedures, CPT code 33426
(Repair of mitral valve) and CPT code 33875 (Thoracic aorta graft),
which have become more complex over the last 5 years.
The International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery/The Society
for Vascular Surgery described a number of problems in the current work
RVUs for vascular surgery procedures, many of which are the result of
the lack of any distinct study of vascular surgical procedures or
vascular surgeons in the Harvard study. This lack of a study could have
particularly deleterious effects for the Medicare program because
Medicare patients account for an exceptionally high percentage of total
patients seen by vascular surgeons. The commenter stated, for example,
that no vascular surgeons were included in the Harvard Technical
Consulting Groups. It also described errors in the Harvard vignettes,
which could have resulted from the absence of vascular surgeons on the
Harvard Technical Consulting Groups and led to incorrect data. The
commenter also noted that some adjustments were made in these services
for the 1993 work RVUs based on an Abt study, but that further
refinements are needed. Finally, the commenter reported the results of
an effort to obtain intraoperative times from 10 hospitals for 9
vascular procedures and 11 other codes selected from the list of
reference procedures. This study found that, while data on nonvascular
surgeries corresponded closely to existing Harvard and RUC data for the
services, for vascular surgeries the current data were 20 percent lower
than the hospital reported times. The American Society of General
Surgeons also commented on two vascular surgical procedures, CPT code
34201 (Removal of artery clot) and CPT code 35654 (Artery bypass
graft).
The RUC found that the International Society for Cardiovascular
Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery offered compelling reasons to
review the current work RVUs for selected vascular surgery procedures.
The RUC did not adopt the particular approaches or proposed RVUs
recommended by the International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery/
Society for Vascular Surgery, however.
The Society for Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, the
American College of Surgeons, the American Society of Hematology, the
American Thoracic Society, the International Society for Cardiovascular
Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, and the American Society of
General Surgeons commented on nine other cardiovascular procedures.
The RUC agreed with the Society of Cardiovascular and
Interventional Radiology that there are anomalies in the current work
RVUs for CPT codes 36215, 36218, 36245, and 36248, all of which are
codes for placing a catheter in an artery. The RUC recommended an
adjustment in the current work RVUs for CPT codes 36215 and 36245 to
make them equal and recommended a change in the global period for CPT
codes 36218 and 36248 to maintain consistency within this family. The
RUC adopted the increase recommended by the general and vascular
surgeons for CPT code 36830 (Creation of arteriovenous fistula by other
than direct arteriovenous anastomosis (separate procedure);
nonautogenous graft). For the remainder of the codes in this group, the
RUC did not believe the commenters presented sufficient evidence to
support an increase and recommended that the current work RVUs be
maintained.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all of the RUC recommendations for
the cardiothoracic and vascular surgery codes.
13. Pathology and Laboratory Procedures
Commenters identified numerous pathology and laboratory procedure
codes as being overvalued.
The review of pathology and laboratory procedures primarily focused
on the codes that commenters identified as overvalued. In response to
the comments, the College of American Pathologists provided
recommendations to the RUC to maintain or increase the RVUs for these
codes. Based on survey results, comparisons to the final
[[Page 20029]]
Harvard study results, comparisons to key reference services, and
analysis of Medicare claims data, the RUC believed that the College of
American Pathologists provided compelling evidence for maintaining the
current work RVUs of these procedures and, for CPT code 86327
(Immunoelectrophoresis assay), for increasing the work RVUs from their
current level.
Comment: The American Society of Hematology provided
recommendations to the RUC on the following five codes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPT
code Descriptor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36520.. Therapeutic apheresis (plasma and/or cell exchange).
38230.. Bone marrow harvesting for transplantation.
85390.. Fibrinolysins or coagulopathy screen, interpretation and
report.
86077.. Blood bank physician services; difficult cross match and/or
evaluation of irregular antibody(s), interpretation and
written report.
86079.. Blood bank physician services; authorization for deviation from
standard blood banking procedures (e.g., use of outdated
blood, transfusion of Rh incompatible units), with written
report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: Based on survey results and
comparisons to key reference services, the RUC recommended increasing
the work RVUs of all five codes; however, in two instances the RUC did
not believe that the specialty society had provided enough evidence to
support adopting the increase that the specialty society recommended.
Comment: The Medical Oncology Association of Southern California,
Inc. requested increased work RVUs for CPT code 85095 (Bone marrow,
aspiration only) and CPT code 85102 (Bone marrow biopsy; needle or
trocar).
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: Since the Medical Oncology
Association of Southern California, Inc. presented no evidence to
support the comment, the RUC recommended maintaining the current work
RVUs of these codes.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all but two of the RUC
recommendations for the pathology and laboratory procedures codes: CPT
code 85390 (Fibrinolysins screen).
The current work RVUs are 0.37. We received conflicting comments on
this code. One commenter recommended that the work RVUs be reduced on
the basis that a fibrinolysin screen requires less time and expertise
than the interpretation of CPT code 71021 (Chest x-ray), which is
assigned 0.22 work RVUs with a Harvard study time of 5 minutes. Another
commenter requested an increase to 1.19 work RVUs. The commenter
compared this service to CPT code 88331 (Pathology consult in surgery),
which has 1.19 work RVUs and a Harvard time of 20 to 24 minutes. The
RUC noted that this procedure has never been surveyed and the current
work RVUs were established by HCFA. The RUC agreed that the physician
work of furnishing this service has changed during the past few years.
The clinical problems presented by patients are more complex, the tests
are more technical, and the physician is required to perform more
tests. However, the RUC did not believe that these changes warranted an
increase to 1.20 work RVUs. Instead, the RUC believed that the service
is comparable in physician work to the key reference service CPT code
88305 (Tissue exam by pathologist), which has 0.75 work RVUs.
Therefore, the RUC recommended 0.75 work RVUs.
Clinical laboratory tests are covered by the Medicare program and
paid for under the clinical laboratory fee schedule; performance of the
test itself does not require the services of a physician and does not
have physician work associated with it. However, we have recognized
that there are a limited number of clinical laboratory codes for which
it is almost always necessary for the laboratory physician to furnish
an interpretation, and we have assigned 0.37 work RVUs to these
interpretations. We are not persuaded that the work has changed over
time. The vignette used to survey this code appeared to represent
service well beyond interpretation of a single test and seemed to
describe a typical consultation. CPT code 80502 (Lab pathology
consultation) describes the surveyed vignette and is valued at 1.33
work RVUs, which is similar to the 1.20 work RVUs from the RUC survey.
Therefore, we have retained the current 0.37 work RVUs for CPT code
85390.
CPT code 86327 (Immunoelectrophoresis assay).
The current work RVUs are 0.37. Pathology interpretation of
laboratory tests was originally valued at 0.37 work RVUs. (See comment
for CPT code 85390 above.) We are not persuaded that the work has
changed over time. The vignette used to survey this code appeared to
represent service well beyond interpretation of a single test and
seemed to describe a typical consultation. CPT code 80502 (Lab
pathology consultation) describes the surveyed vignette and is valued
at 1.33 work RVUs, which is similar to the 1.20 work RVUs from the RUC
survey.
14. Psychiatry
The American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry submitted comments on psychiatric
services. Both societies commented that the current physician fee
schedule has not preserved the original work-value relationships
developed by Harvard. It was their view that if the relative value of
the code for 45 minutes of psychotherapy (CPT code 90844) is changed,
all other values in the psychiatric section of CPT should be changed to
preserve the original relationship with the psychotherapy code. The
societies contended that our failure to maintain the relative
relationships among the psychiatric codes that were surveyed by Harvard
has resulted in the undervaluation of all psychiatric services.
The American Psychiatric Association made five other specific
comments:
Psychotherapy service CPT codes 90842, 90843, and 90844
represent three bundled services (continuing medical evaluation,
medication management, and psychotherapy).
Psychotherapy codes that are time dependent, especially
CPT code 90844, have inappropriately low work RVUs as a result of
undervaluing of time as a dimension of work.
The nature of psychotherapy services has become more
intensive since the development of the existing work RVUs.
The preservice and postservice work for psychiatric
services is undervalued.
CPT code 90844 is inappropriately linked to CPT code 99204
(Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of
a new patient). The American Psychiatric Association argued in its
comments that CPT code 90844 requires that the physician spend 45 to 50
minutes of face-to-face time with a patient. In contrast, CPT code
99204 can routinely last less than 45 minutes.
Based on a combined survey of 250 physicians, clinical
psychologists, and nurses, the American Psychiatric Association
presented recommendations for 18 psychiatric codes. The American
Psychiatric Association, in its comments and during its presentation to
the RUC, presented the following evidence to support increasing the
work RVUs of the psychiatric codes:
Patient type and mix have changed dramatically during the
past 5 years. The American Psychiatric Association reported that before
1990, for the most part, ``stable'' patients were seen in an office
outpatient setting. Patients that
[[Page 20030]]
were considered unstable, and otherwise hard to manage, were treated as
inpatients, allowing the physician to coordinate with the hospital
staff, if necessary. In the past, patients tended to seek treatment
earlier and physicians were able to make referrals to psychiatrists
earlier. The onset of managed care has increased the likelihood that
many patients are referred to nonphysician mental health providers,
which has translated into psychiatrists treating only the severely ill
patient.
Decreasing inpatient hospital admission has resulted in
increased patient morbidity. Again, the American Psychiatric
Association noted that shifting insurance industry patterns have played
a significant role in this trend. Although many insurance policies
offer mental health coverage, the coverage is often very restrictive.
For example, most policies have strict limits on the number of
inpatient hospital days. Many managed care policies have shifted away
from long-term psychotherapy in favor of short intermittent treatment
therapies.
Since many more patients are seen on an outpatient basis,
there is an increasing amount of coordination of care with other
providers. The American Psychiatric Association noted that the time
spent dealing with coordination of care issues has resulted in an
increase of physician preservice and postservice work.
During the past 5 years, new, highly sophisticated
neuroleptic and antidepressant medications have been introduced. The
American Psychiatric Association noted that, because of the advances in
psychopharmacology, a greater number of individual psychotherapy
patients will likely utilize these medications than was the case 5
years ago. The greater reliance on these medications has increased the
complexity of the medical decision making during an individual
psychotherapy visit. Many of these new drugs require constant
monitoring, such as weekly blood monitoring in the case of Clorazil.
The failure to monitor these drugs appropriately could result in
adverse side effects and possibly death.
The psychotherapy codes have specific times incorporated
into the CPT descriptor that do not accurately reflect the current
practice of psychiatry. The American Psychiatric Association noted that
the practice of psychiatry has changed significantly since the
psychotherapy codes were surveyed during the Harvard study; therefore,
the current RVUs should be increased to reflect this change.
The RUC reviewed 18 services in the psychiatry section of CPT. For
13 of those services, the RUC recommended no change from the current
work RVUs. For the other five services, the RUC believed that the five
points cited by the American Psychiatric Association provide a
compelling argument for increasing the work RVUs from their current
levels. The RUC also concluded that the survey vignettes that the
specialty society used describe the ``typical patient'' in 1995. In two
instances, a commenter recommended lowering the current work RVUs of
psychiatric services. In both instances, the RUC concluded that the
specialty society provided compelling evidence for maintaining the
current work RVUs for those codes.
HCFA Decision: We agree with the RUC recommendations not to change
the current work RVUs for 13 psychiatric services. We disagree with the
RUC that there is compelling evidence to increase the work RVUs of the
remaining 5 psychiatric services (CPT codes 90801, 90843, 90844, 90853,
and 90855). As a result, we will maintain the current work RVUs for all
18 psychiatric services. The 1996 work RVUs are slightly higher than
the 1995 work RVUs because, effective January 1, 1996, we bundled the
work RVUs for CPT codes 90825 and 90887 across CPT codes 90801, 90820,
90835, 90842 through 90847, and 90853 through 90857.
15. Other Medical and Therapeutic Services
Comment: We received isolated comments regarding purportedly
overvalued miscellaneous diagnostic and therapeutic procedures such as
biofeedback, esophageal motility studies, pulmonary testing, and
intralesional chemotherapy.
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: Based on recommendations from the
National Association of Medical Directors of Respiratory Care, the
American Thoracic Society, the American College of Chest Physicians,
the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, and the American
Academy of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, the RUC recommended maintaining
the current work RVUs of most of the procedures that were identified by
commenters. These recommendations were based on survey results,
comparisons to final Harvard study results, comparisons to key
reference services, and analysis of Medicare claims data.
Comment: The American Academy of Neurology submitted a comment on
CPT code 95951 (Monitoring for identification and lateralization of
cerebral seizure focus by attached electrodes; combined
electroencephalographic (EEG) and video recording and interpretation,
each 24 hours) recommending an increase in work RVUs from 3.80 to 6.75.
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: The requested work RVUs were amended
to 6.00 based on results of the survey by the American Academy of
Neurology. The RUC held the view that the survey results provided
sufficient evidence to warrant increasing the work RVUs for the
procedure. This recommendation was based on a survey of 60
neurologists, comparisons to final Harvard study results, and
comparisons to key reference services.
Comment: The Medical Oncology Association of Southern California,
Inc. submitted work RVU recommendations for the following CPT codes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPT
code Descriptor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
96440.. Chemotherapy administration into pleural cavity, requiring and
including thoracentesis.
96445.. Chemotherapy administration into peritoneal cavity, requiring
and including peritoneocentesis.
96450.. Chemotherapy administration into CNS (e.g., intrathecal),
requiring and including lumbar puncture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: The RUC recommended maintaining the
current work RVUs for these three chemotherapy codes. These
recommendations were based on the fact that the RUC had recently
reviewed one of the procedures and the fact that Medicare Part B data
showed that the other chemotherapy procedures are infrequently
performed.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all but one of the RUC
recommendations for other medical and therapeutic services: CPT code
90911 (Anorectal biofeedback).
The current work RVUs are 2.15. A commenter recommended a reduction
to 0.93 work RVUs since this procedure lacks the intensity of CPT code
90937 (Hemodialysis, repeated evaluation) or CPT code 90801
(Psychiatric interview). CPT code 46606 (Anoscopy and biopsy) requires
less time but presents a greater risk than CPT code 90911. The RUC
recommended retaining the current work RVUs since the procedure is
lengthy, taking a minimum of 30 minutes but typically lasting 45 to 60
minutes. The RUC's view was that the procedure is more intense and
requires more work than CPT code 46606. The RUC considers that this
procedure is
[[Page 20031]]
similar in its intensity to CPT code 90801.
In our assessment, the RUC recommendation is too high. Other
biofeedback procedures are valued at 0.89 work RVUs. This procedure
involves little physician work and is similar to other biofeedback
procedures; therefore, we have assigned 0.89 work RVUs.
16. Speech/Language/Hearing
Comment: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and the
American Academy of Audiology submitted comments on the following CPT
codes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPT
code Descriptor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
92506.. Speech & hearing evaluation.
92507.. Speech/hearing therapy.
92508.. Speech/hearing therapy.
92541.. Spontaneous nystagmus test.
92542.. Positional nystagmus test
92544.. Optokinetic nystagmus test.
92545.. Oscillating tracking test.
92546.. Sinusoidal rotational test.
92585.. Auditory evoked potential.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, these commenters expressed concern regarding our
payment policies for audiologists and speech pathologists. These
organizations stated that the current practice expense component does
not accurately reflect the technical work that is involved in
performing the services. In addition, the American Academy of Audiology
noted that the current physician fee schedule includes zero work RVUs
for audiology services, even though the Harvard study included
physician work RVUs for these codes.
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and the American
Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery, Inc. had originally
wanted to survey these services; however, they have now requested that
the codes be withdrawn from further consideration.
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: A majority of these codes have been
revised for CPT 1996, and the RUC submitted work RVU recommendations to
us in May 1995. The distinction between physician work RVUs and work
recognized as practice expenses such as the labor component of
audiology services is addressed in section II.C.5. of this notice.
Because interim work RVUs, which are subject to public comment, were
established in January 1996, and final work RVUs will be established
for 1997, we are not considering these codes in the 5-year review.
Comment: Commenters stated that CPT code 92512 (Nasal function
studies (e.g., rhinomanometry)) is similar to CPT code 94060
(Bronchospasm evaluation: spirometry as in 94010, before and after
bronchodilator (aerosol or parenteral) or exercise), with 0.31 work
RVUs.
RUC Evaluation/Recommendation: The RUC noted that nasal function
studies are performed to evaluate the normal or abnormal function of
the nose. Rhinomanometry is a nasal function study that measures the
flow and pressure of air through the nose. It enables the physician to
assess the degree of obstruction, if any, that may be present in the
nasal passages. Anterior rhinomanometry measures air flow in the front
of the nasal cavity and is performed by inserting flexible air tubes
into each nostril. The tubes are connected to a device that measures
the amount and pressure of air that flows through them as the patient
breathes. The physician records measurements of air flow and, from
these, calculates the degree of obstruction. CPT code 94060 is a
distinctly different test, which uses spirometry to measure exhaled gas
and record the time of collection. CPT code 94060 is less intense and
requires less physician time than CPT code 92512. Therefore, the RUC
recommended that the current work RVUs be maintained.
HCFA Decision: We have accepted all of the RUC recommendations for
the speech, language, and hearing codes.
C. Other Comments
1. Evaluation and Management Services
We received numerous comments requesting review of evaluation and
management services. Most of the comments focused on office visits,
hospital visits, and consultations. The commenters offered three major
reasons for requesting that the work RVUs for these evaluation and
management services be reviewed:
The physician work involved in these services has
increased since the initial Harvard study of RVUs was conducted. As a
mechanism to control costs over the past 10 years, there has been
increased pressure to treat patients in the office rather than the
hospital or emergency room. Patients are being discharged from the
hospital sooner. As a result, the typical patient seen in the office
and in the hospital is more complex than the patient seen in the mid-
1980's. Also, the preservice and postservice work has changed due to
the following factors:
+ Increased documentation requirements.
+ Time and effort required for obtaining or providing
authorizations for tests and referrals.
+ Higher patient expectations and an increasingly well informed
patient population.
+ Increased coordination with other health professionals and family
members.
+ Increased patient education regarding issues such as fall
prevention and adverse drug reactions.
Evaluation and management services are undervalued
relative to most other procedures. The highest level evaluation and
management services require a ``comprehensive examination'' and
``medical decision making of high complexity,'' yet the assigned work
RVUs for these services are lower than for procedures that involve less
time, less mental effort and judgment, and less technical skill and
physical effort. An analysis of intraservice work per unit time
(intensity) by one commenter found that the intensity of 96 percent of
the services paid under the physician fee schedule exceeded the
existing intensity of evaluation and management services. The existing
intensities were calculated by dividing the work RVUs by the typical
time of the CPT codes for evaluation and management services.
The current CPT codes for evaluation and management
services were never directly surveyed or studied in the Harvard RVU
study. The Harvard study conducted its survey from 1986 through 1988;
the new CPT codes were published in 1992. At the time of the Harvard
surveys, evaluation and management services were not defined based on
the level of history, examination, and medical decision making. A
crosswalk from the old CPT codes to the new CPT codes was used to
establish work RVUs. Also, the preservice and postservice work was not
directly surveyed, nor was postservice work defined.
We forwarded these comments to the RUC. The RUC agreed with the
commenters that an in-depth review of the work involved in office and
hospital visits and consultations was warranted. We also referred
comments suggesting that the work RVUs for nursing facility visits and
home visits should be reviewed.
After reviewing selected evaluation and management services, the
RUC found the evidence compelling to recommend increasing the work RVUs
for office visits, subsequent hospital visits, and consultations. The
RUC made an interim recommendation not to change the work RVUs for the
home visits. In developing its
[[Page 20032]]
recommendations, the RUC focused principally on the work involved in
the evaluation and management services, how the work has changed over
time, and how the work is related to the work of other evaluation and
management services and non-evaluation and management services. The RUC
recommended work RVUs for 39 of the 98 evaluation and management
services for which we have assigned work RVUs. When there was not a
recommendation, the RUC took the position that the work RVUs did not
need to be changed.
As we evaluated the RUC recommendations, we noted several
inconsistencies:
The recommendations significantly alter the existing
relationships among all the evaluation and management services without
providing compelling evidence that the existing rank order is
incorrect.
The complexity of the service, as described by the level
of history, examination, and decision making, did not directly
correspond to the recommended work RVUs.
The survey data were flawed; however, the RUC used the
postservice work times that it acknowledges are overstated in its
formula to calculate intraservice work intensity. The formula actually
calculates something that is more accurately described as total work
intensity, that is, total work divided by total time.
Many of the arguments to increase the RVUs are based on
the assumptions that the CPT codes do not adequately describe the
service and that the current CPT codes for evaluation and management
services were not used in the Harvard surveys.
We believe that maintaining the relationships among the evaluation
and management services is important. Therefore, we have examined all
98 evaluation and management services for which we have assigned work
RVUs. In assigning work RVUs, we considered the level of complexity of
each service and valued the service as described by the CPT code. As
the American Academy of Family Physicians noted in its original 5-year
review comments, ``valuing a service which requires more effort and
more time at a lower level than a `simple' procedure is inconsistent
with the concept of a resource-based relative value scale.'' We believe
that this rationale applies within the family of evaluation and
management services. We took the survey data into general consideration
but also investigated other objective data sources such as the AMA
Socioeconomic Monitoring Survey from 1988 and 1994.
If, as the commenters have suggested, the patients are more complex
and the postservice work has increased, we should expect to see a
change in the number of patient care hours a physician works or in the
number of patient visits per week or a change in the level of visit
billed. However, data from the AMA Socioeconomic Monitoring Survey as
published in Physician Marketplace Statistics 1989 and 1994, reveal
that the median number of hours a physician works in patient care (51)
and the median number of patient visits per week (101) have not changed
between 1988 and 1994. The AMA definition of hours in patient care
includes activities that we consider to be postservice work. Using
these data along with Medicare frequency data and the total service
times provided in the RUC recommendations (RUC RVUs/RUC intensities),
we calculated that the minimum number of hours in patient care
necessary to perform 101 visits per week is 78.5. This discrepancy
suggests that the RUC recommendations overestimate the total times by
approximately 50 percent.
In reviewing our claims data, we have seen a slight increase in the
average number of work RVUs billed within each group of evaluation and
management services. For each family of evaluation and management
services, we calculated the quarterly average work RVUs since the
beginning of the physician fee schedule. The average work RVUs for the
family of office/outpatient visit for an established patient (CPT codes
99211 through 99215), have increased from 0.60 to 0.62, a 3.33 percent
increase from 1992 to 1995. This increase may reflect the increasing
complexity of the Medicare patient or other factors.
National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data from 1989 and 1993
reveal that the mean face-to-face time for all office visits has
increased 13.6 percent. In 1989, the mean time was 16.2 minutes and in
1993 it was 18.4 minutes. Although the change is statistically
significant, we question its clinical significance. The data
demonstrate, however, that between 1989 and 1993 there has been a shift
toward office visits with longer face-to-face times.
We approached review of the work RVUs for the evaluation and
management services with three basic assumptions that were integral to
the Harvard study and the 1992 work RVU refinement:
All services within a family of evaluation and management
services (that is, office visits) have the same intraservice work
intensity.
The intraservice work times in the CPT code descriptors
are correct.
The preservice and postservice work intensity is a fixed
percentage of the intraservice work intensity.
The RUC recommendations do not preserve these basic assumptions
except for using the CPT times as an accurate measure of intraservice
work times. Despite claiming that it maintained constant intensities
within a family, the intensities the RUC calculated are not always
consistent. For example, the RUC intensities for CPT codes 99231
through 99233 range from 0.018 to 0.021. It is also unclear whether the
RUC calculated preservice and postservice work intensities. If we
assume a fixed intraservice work intensity within a family of
evaluation and management codes, the RUC recommendations actually
assign higher amounts of preservice and postservice work to the lower
level codes within an evaluation and management family.
The commenters claim that Harvard did not survey the current
evaluation and management codes is technically correct but very
misleading. In fact, the current codes were carefully developed to
support the clinical vignettes used in, and the results of, the Harvard
surveys. An extraordinary amount of work by Harvard, HCFA, the
Physician Payment Review Commission, the CPT Editorial Panel, and the
specialty societies went into the formulation and testing of the codes.
We will continue to value services based on the CPT descriptions. If
physicians believe that the definitions do not correctly describe the
service as furnished in today's health care sector, they should discuss
revising the definitions with the CPT Editorial Panel.
In assigning work RVUs to these services, we defined preservice
work as preparing to see the patient, reviewing records, and
communicating with other professionals, as appropriate. We defined
postservice work as including all coordination of care, documentation,
and telephone calls with the patient, family members, or other health
professionals associated with the delivery of care to the patient until
the next face-to-face evaluation and management service is furnished
(excluding separately billable services such as care plan oversight,
CPT code 99375). The RUC used these definitions in its survey of
evaluation and management services. Unlike the RUC and other
commenters, we consider the time and effort required for obtaining and
providing authorizations for tests and referrals to be a practice
expense
[[Page 20033]]
issue because most of the work is done by a physician's staff rather
than the physicians themselves.
We agree with the commenters that the intensities of evaluation and
management services should be increased to bring them closer to the
intensities of procedural services on the physician fee schedule.
Therefore, we propose to increase the intensities of the intraservice
work, which is that portion of total work furnished either face-to-face
with the patient in the office or on the floor or unit for inpatient
services. We also agree with the commenters that postservice work has
increased over time. We propose to increase the fixed percentage of
intraservice work that represents preservice and postservice work. To
determine the appropriate amounts to increase these intensities, we
have chosen CPT code 99291 (Critical care, first hour) as our anchor
because we believe that it is the most intense evaluation and
management service. We accepted the RUC recommendation of 4.00 work
RVUs for this service.
If we assume that CPT code 99291 is the most intense service, we do
not want the work RVUs for the other evaluation and management services
to exceed 4.00. Under the current work RVUs, we have an established
relationship between CPT code 99291 and CPT code 99213 (Level-three
established patient office visit). CPT code 99213 represents a service
with 15 minutes of face-to-face time. CPT code 99291 represents an hour
of service. We believe that four times the value for CPT code 99213
plus the work RVUs for ventilation management (1.22) and the
interpretation of a single view chest x-ray (0.18) should be about
equivalent to the work RVUs for critical care. We selected ventilation
management and interpretation of a chest x-ray because they are the
commonly performed items in critical care that are bundled into the
critical care work RVUs. Given this relationship, we used an iterative
process and determined that, for most evaluation and management
services, if we increased the intraservice work intensity by 10 percent
and the fixed percentage of intraservice work (to capture preservice
and postservice work) by 25 percent, we would increase the work RVUs
for evaluation and management services in a manner that would be
consistent with the RUC recommendations while maintaining the existing
relationships of the evaluation and management families.
We followed a straightforward methodology in revising the work
RVUs. For each code in the following classes: office, new patient;
office, established patient; initial hospital care; subsequent hospital
care; office consultation; initial inpatient consultation; and follow-
up inpatient consultation, we calculated the revised intensity by
adjusting the intensities developed in 1992 and described in our
November 25, 1992 final notice for the 1993 physician fee schedule (57
FR 55949 through 55951). Those intensities were originally based upon
results of the Harvard study and adjusted to maintain linearity in 1992
based on comments received on the 1991 physician fee schedule final
rule (56 FR 59502).
The revised intraservice work intensities that have resulted from
our 5-year review of evaluation and management services are summarized
in the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 intra- 1997 intra-
Code/class service service
intensity intensity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office visits, new patient...................... 0.028 0.031
Office visits, established patient.............. 0.028 0.031
Initial hospital visits......................... 0.028 0.031
Subsequent hospital visits...................... 0.028 0.031
Office consultations............................ 0.028 0.031
Initial inpatient consultations................. 0.022 0.024
Follow-up inpatient consultations............... 0.028 0.031
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preservice and postservice work is expressed as a percentage of the
intraservice work. The following table summarizes the revised
preservice and postservice work as percentage of intraservice work for
the evaluation and management codes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 mean 1997 mean
Code/class percentage percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office visits, new patient...................... 35.0 43.8
Office visits, established patient.............. 35.1 43.8
Initial hospital visits......................... 30.3 37.9
Subsequent hospital visits...................... 12.5 37.9
Office consultations............................ 34.5 38.5
Initial inpatient consultations................. 34.5 37.9
Follow-up inpatient consultations............... 34.9 37.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the new work RVUs for the above classes of evaluation
and management services as part of the 5-year review, we used the above
intraservice work intensities and preservice and postservice work
percentages in addition to the CPT times. The intraservice work
intensity was multiplied by the typical time of the codes as listed in
CPT to determine the new intraservice work values. The preservice and
postservice work percentage of this value was added to the intraservice
work value to calculate the final work RVUs for the codes. The formula
is total work RVUs = (intraservice work intensity) x (CPT time) x
(1 + pre/post percentage of intraservice work).
Table 2, ``Evaluation and Management Codes; Five-Year Review--
Proposed Relative Value Units,'' lists all of the evaluation and
management services and their 1995 and proposed new work RVUs. For each
code, we have also provided a measure of complexity. This is a numeric
representation of the level of history, examination, and medical
decision making associated with the service. These three components of
the evaluation and management service are considered the key components
in selecting a level of evaluation and management service. For each of
the 3 elements, the maximum score is 4; therefore, the most complex
service has a score of 12. If the CPT code descriptor does not define
the typical level of history, examination, and decision making
complexity, as with CPT code 99291 (Critical care, first hour), no
score for that code may be computed.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 20034]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.023
[[Page 20035]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY96.024
BILLING CODE 4210-01-C
[[Page 20036]]
CPT codes 99201 through 99215 (Office visits).
We disagree with the RUC' contention that the established patient
visits are more undervalued than the new patient visits. We also
disagree with the RUC recommendations that assign higher work RVUs to
established patient visits than new patient visits of the same duration
and same level of complexity, for example, the recommended work RVUs
for CPT codes 99201 and 99212. Both codes describe 10 minute office
visits of equal complexity. However, the RUC has recommended work RVUs
for the established patient visit that are 28 percent greater than the
recommended work RVUs for the new patient visit. Historically, there
has been a consensus in the physician community (confirmed by the
Harvard resource-based relative value study) that new patients involve
more physician work than established patients. It was for this reason
that the CPT Editorial Panel created separate codes for new and
established patients.
Finally, we do not agree that the work RVUs for CPT code 99211
(Level-one established patient office visit) should change as the RUC
has recommended. Because this service, by definition, does not require
the presence of a physician, we are maintaining the 1995 work RVUs.
We adjusted the intraservice work intensity of CPT code 99213 to
equal the intensities of the other office visit codes. Rounding due to
past budget neutrality adjustments had caused the slight variation in
the intraservice work intensities. To account for the possibility that
these services were originally undervalued, we increased the
intraservice work intensity by 10 percent. Because the package of
postservice work, as defined earlier, was not explicitly surveyed by
Harvard and we believe that the amount of postservice work has
increased since these codes were originally assigned RVUs, we increased
the preservice and postservice work percentage of intraservice work for
all office visit codes (except for CPT code 99211) by 25 percent.
Using the adjusted work intensities and the times included in the
CPT descriptors for the codes, we calculated new work RVUs for all
office visits. The new work RVUs are on average 17.1 percent greater
than the 1995 work RVUs for CPT codes 99201 through 99215.
CPT codes 99221 through 99239 (Hospital visits).
The RUC assumed that there has been no change in initial hospital
visits (CPT codes 99221 through 99223) since the original Harvard
study. In fact, the RUC did not survey these services to determine
whether its assumption was true. Neither did the RUC suggest that these
codes were originally undervalued like other evaluation and management
services. The RUC recommended no change in the work RVUs for these
codes despite the comments that all evaluation and management services
were undervalued relative to procedural services. Our view is that if
the office visits were undervalued, so were the initial hospital
visits. We approached review of these codes in the same manner as we
did the office visit codes.
The RUC recommended that the work RVUs for subsequent hospital
visits and follow-up inpatient consultations should be equivalent
because the time and complexity of the lowest, middle, and highest
levels of subsequent hospital care and follow-up inpatient
consultations are very similar. We agree that they are similar;
however, they are not identical. Therefore, we have reviewed each group
of services on its own merit.
Because the RUC recommended no change in the work RVUs for initial
hospital visits and significant increases in the work RVUs for
subsequent hospital visits, the rank order of these two groups of
evaluation and management services is distorted. We do not agree, as
the RUC recommended, that subsequent hospital visits typically require
more work than initial hospital visits. The work RVUs recommended for
CPT code 99232 (Level-two subsequent hospital visit with a typical time
of 25 minutes and a complexity score of 7.0) are 23 percent greater
than the recommended work RVUs for CPT code 99221 (Level-one initial
hospital visit with a typical time of 30 minutes and a complexity score
of 8.5). If we chose to accept the RUC, we would be allowing a shorter,
less complex service to be valued higher than a longer, more complex
service. This assignment of work RVUs corrupts the integrity of a
resource-based relative value system.
We reestablished a fixed intraservice work intensity for initial
hospital visits at 0.028. (There was minimal variation across the three
levels due to the past budget neutrality adjustments.) This intensity
is the same as the intensity for subsequent hospital visits (CPT codes
99231 through 99233). As with the office visits, we increased the
intraservice work intensity by 10 percent for both initial and
subsequent hospital visits to account for an original undervaluing of
the services.
Following the change in the intraservice work intensities, we
increased the preservice and postservice work percentage of
intraservice work for the subsequent hospital visits to equal that of
inpatient consultations. We then increased this percentage for all
initial and subsequent hospital visit codes by 25 percent. Using the
adjusted work intensities and the times included in the CPT descriptors
for the codes, we calculated new work RVUs for all initial and
subsequent hospital visits. The new work RVUs are on average 20 percent
greater than the 1995 work RVUs for CPT codes 99221 through 99233.
After making these adjustments to the initial hospital visit codes,
we equated CPT code 99238 (Hospital discharge day management, 30
minutes or less) to CPT code 99221 (Level-one initial hospital visit)
when assigning new work RVUs. The 1995 work RVUs for CPT codes 99238
and 99221 are equal. We have decided to maintain this relationship
because there is no evidence to suggest that altering it is
appropriate. We did not change the work RVUs for CPT code 99239
(Hospital discharge day management, more than 30 minutes) because the
code was new in calendar year 1996. Therefore, there has been no change
over time in the service described by this code. Not revising the work
RVUs for CPT code 99239 also places it just below CPT code 99222, a
similar service of slightly greater duration.
CPT codes 99217 through 99220 (Observation care services).
The RUC did not make any recommendations regarding observation care
services. As part of our effort to examine the whole group of
evaluation and management services to maintain existing relationships,
we reviewed these codes.
In reviewing the work RVUs for CPT code 99217 (Observation care
discharge), we noted that this code is relatively equivalent to CPT
code 99238 (Hospital discharge day management). To reflect this
relationship, we assigned work RVUs to this code equal to the work RVUs
assigned to CPT code 99221, a 17.3 percent increase in work RVUs.
The initial observation care services for new or established
patients (CPT codes 99218 through 99220) match the services described
by the initial hospital visits codes in the level of complexity.
Because both sets of codes can only be billed once per date of service
and patients in observation status are virtually identical to
inpatients, we have made the work RVUs for CPT codes 99218 through
99220 equivalent to the work RVUs assigned to CPT codes 99221 through
99223, thereby increasing the work RVUs by an average of 21.6 percent.
CPT codes 99241 through 99275 (Consultations).
[[Page 20037]]
The RUC concluded that the work RVUs for office consultations and
inpatient consultations should be ``equivalent at all levels of service
except the highest. This preserves the same relationship that exists in
the current RVUs for these services.'' We disagree with the RUC that
inpatient and office consultations should be equally valued. The 1995
work RVUs for these two families are not equivalent. The Harvard data
demonstrated that inpatient consultations are more total work than
office consultations, except at the lowest level of service. We believe
that these services are not equivalent because the intraservice times
are different and the associated postservice work is different (it is
greater for inpatient consultations). However, we acknowledge that the
level of complexity of the five levels of services for both inpatient
and office consultations are the same.
CPT codes 99241 through 99245 (Office or other outpatient
consultations).
The work associated with office consultations is more comparable to
the work of office visits than to inpatient consultations. Therefore,
we standardized the intraservice work intensities to make them
equivalent to the 1995 intraservice work intensities of office and
hospital visits (0.028). We also adjusted the preservice and
postservice work percentage of intraservice work to equal the 1995
percentage for office visits, a slight increase from 34.5 percent to 35
percent.
After these initial adjustments were made, we increased the
intraservice work intensities by 10 percent to reflect our belief that
the codes may have been originally undervalued. To account for the
previously defined package of postservice work, we increased the
preservice and postservice work percentage of intraservice work by 10
percent. We did not increase the postservice work percentage by 25
percent as we did with the office visits because we do not believe that
the postservice work associated with an office consultation is as great
as for an office visit. The postservice work for an office visit
includes the ongoing management of the patient until the next face-to-
face visit. The postservice work for a consultation involves writing a
report for the referring physician without the expectation, in the
typical case, that the patient will return to the consulting physician,
nor is the consulting physician responsible for any ongoing management
of the patient. If the consultation results in a decision to perform
surgery, any postservice management of the patient is included in the
global surgical package.
CPT codes 99251 through 99255 (Initial inpatient consultations).
We standardized the intraservice work intensities to eliminate the
minor variation that resulted from the annual budget neutrality
adjustments to the RVUs. Based on the Harvard study, the intraservice
work intensity is less than that of the office consultations.
As we did with hospital visits, we increased the intraservice work
intensities by 10 percent and the preservice and postservice work
percentage of intraservice work by 25 percent. These increases reflect
the belief that the services were initially undervalued and that the
postservice work, now clearly defined, is greater due to changes over
time. Postservice work associated with an inpatient consultation is
greater than that for an office consultation because of the amount of
work performed off-the-floor by the consulting physician, such as
checking on laboratory results and reviewing x-rays. The new work RVUs
are, on average, 17.5 percent greater than the 1995 work RVUs assigned
to initial inpatient consultations.
CPT codes 99261 through 99263 (Follow-up inpatient consultations).
We disagree with the RUC that these codes should have the same work
RVUs as their corresponding level of the subsequent hospital visit
codes because the intraservice times are different and consultations
and visits are not equivalent services. We agree that the intraservice
work intensities and the preservice and postservice work percentages of
intraservice work are probably the same for follow-up consultations and
subsequent hospital visits. Therefore, we adjusted the preservice and
postservice work percentage of intraservice work to match the 1995
percentage of the subsequent hospital visits, a decrease from 34.5
percent to 30.3 percent.
Using the same rationale as for the initial inpatient
consultations, we increased the intraservice work intensities by 10
percent and the preservice and postservice work percentages of
intraservice work by 25 percent. The new work RVUs for these services
are about 14 percent higher than the 1995 work RVUs assigned to these
codes.
CPT codes 99271 through 99275 (Confirmatory consultations).
We have decided not to change the work RVUs assigned to these
codes. There is less work associated with a confirmatory consultation
than a new patient office visit because the patient arrives with a
preliminary diagnosis and the consulting physician is expected to
provide an opinion or advice only. Not adjusting the work RVUs alters
the existing relationships that these codes have with the rest of the
evaluation and management services, but we believe that this change is
appropriate.
CPT codes 99281 through 99285 (Emergency department services).
We disagree with the RUC's recommendation to maintain the 1995 work
RVUs for emergency department services. The RUC did not consider the
emergency room physicians' survey of CPT codes 99284 and 99285 adequate
to support change. In our view, this survey was no less adequate than
some surveys on which the RUC based its recommendations to increase the
work RVUs of other evaluation and management codes. For consistency and
equity, if other visit codes are being reviewed because of a belief
that evaluation and management services were originally undervalued,
emergency department services should also be reviewed.
Given that we have assigned increased work RVUs to other evaluation
and management services with complexities comparable to those of the
emergency room services, we believe that we should make comparable
changes to CPT codes 99281 through 99285. We do not have work
intensities or CPT times for these codes, thus, we have assigned work
RVUs to these services that maintain their proportional relationship
with the work RVUs assigned to CPT code 99255, the non-critical care
evaluation and management code with the highest work RVUs. The
resulting work RVUs reflect an average 16.6 percent increase from the
1995 work RVUs for emergency department services.
CPT codes 99291 through 99297 (Critical care services).
We have accepted the RUC recommendations for CPT codes 99291 and
99292. Because the work RVUs for CPT codes 99293 through 99297 are
based on the work RVUs of CPT codes 99291 and 99292, we have adjusted
the work RVUs for these neonatal intensive care services. Using the
formula articulated in the December 2, 1993 final rule for the 1994
physician fee schedule (58 FR 63675), CPT code 99295 is equivalent to 4
hours of critical care, CPT code 99296 is equivalent to 2 hours of
critical care, and CPT code 99297 is equivalent to 1 hour of critical
care. Therefore, the new work RVUs for CPT code 99295 (16.00) are
calculated as follows: the work RVUs of CPT code 99291 (4.00) plus six
times CPT code 99292 (6 x 2.00). The new work RVUs for CPT code 99296
(8.00) equal the work
[[Page 20038]]
RVUs of CPT code 99291 (4.00) plus two times CPT code 99292 (2 x 2.00).
The new work RVUs for CPT code 99297 (4.00) equal the work RVUs of CPT
code 99291 (4.00).
CPT codes 99301 through 99313 (Nursing facility services).
In 1992, these codes were evaluated by a multispecialty refinement
panel after commenters had requested that we assign work RVUs for
nursing facility services that were more commensurate with the work
RVUs assigned to the hospital visit codes. The commenters believed that
nursing facility visits were most similar to hospital visits in time,
intensity, and complexity. In general, the refinement panel agreed with
the commenters. Therefore, we need to revise the work RVUs assigned to
CPT codes 99301 through 99313 because we have revised the work RVUs for
the initial and subsequent hospital visits. In order to maintain the
relationship that the refinement panel created, we are assigning new
work RVUs to the nursing facility services using the CPT times and the
revised intensities for initial and subsequent hospital visits
(intraservice intensity = 0.031 and the pre/post fixed percentage of
intraservice work = 37.9 percent). Because the 1995 work RVUs resulted
from a refinement panel, they do not consistently represent the above
relationship. The proposed work RVUs use the intensities for initial
and subsequent hospital visits for all the nursing facility codes. As a
result, some of the proposed work RVUs are lower than the current work
RVUs.
CPT codes 99341 through 99353 (Home services).
Our view is that the current relationship between the work RVUs for
home visits and office visits should be maintained. The May 1992
refinement panel equated the home codes to office visit codes. Our
position is that a home visit takes longer to furnish than a service
with a similar content (level of history, examination, and medical
decision making) in an office setting, thus, the home visits are
equated with office visits of greater length. Therefore, we assigned
new work RVUs to the home visit codes using the following relationships
with the new work RVUs for office visits:
New patients:
CPT code 99341=CPT code 99203;
CPT code 99342=CPT code 99204;
CPT code 99343=CPT code 99205.
Established patients:
CPT code 99351=CPT code 99213;
CPT code 99352=CPT code 99214;
CPT code 99353=CPT code 99215.
Because the 1995 work RVUs resulted from a refinement panel, the above
relationships are not perfectly represented by the 1995 work RVUs.
Therefore, in assigning new work RVUs with the above-described
relationship, we have decreased the work RVUs for CPT codes 99351 and
99352.
CPT codes 99321 through 99333 (Domiciliary, rest home (e.g.,
boarding home), or custodial care services).
The source of the 1995 work RVUs is HCFA. We assumed that these
services require less work than home visits because of the availability
of personal assistant services. We have taken the average of the
relative proportion of the 1995 work RVUs for these codes to the 1995
work RVUs of the home visit codes; on that basis, the domiciliary codes
represent two-thirds of the work of the home visits. We are maintaining
the existing relationship in the fee schedule. We calculated the new
work RVUs for CPT codes 99321 through 99333 by multiplying the work
RVUs for CPT codes 99341 through 99353 by 0.667. Specifically, the
relationship between the two families is the following:
CPT code 99321=(0.667) CPT code 99341
CPT code 99322=(0.667) CPT code 99342
CPT code 99323=(0.667) CPT code 99343
CPT code 99331=(0.667) CPT code 99351
CPT code 99332=(0.667) CPT code 99352
CPT code 99333=(0.667) CPT code 99353
CPT codes 99354 through 99357 (Prolonged physician service with
direct (face-to-face) patient contact).
We did not receive any RUC recommendations for these services.
However, the 1995 work RVUs for these codes are based on the work RVUs
of three other evaluation and management codes. This relationship was
established in the December 8, 1994 final rule for the 1995 physician
fee schedule (59 FR 63437 through 63440). To maintain this
relationship, we have recalculated the work RVUs for CPT codes 99354
through 99357 using the new work RVUs for CPT codes 99215, 99221, and
99222. The work RVUs for CPT codes 99354 and 99355 are equal to the
work RVUs assigned to CPT code 99215. The work RVUs for CPT codes 99356
and 99357 are equal to the average of the work RVUs of CPT codes 99221
and 99222.
We understand that some physicians do not associate the use of
prolonged service codes with potential increases in postservice work.
Because the work RVUs for these prolonged service codes are based on
other evaluation and management services, the use of a prolonged
service code increases the potential amount of postservice work
associated with the service being furnished to the Medicare
beneficiary. The prolonged service codes describe additional face-to-
face time but CPT codes 99215, 99221, and 99222 include postservice
time. By establishing a clear relationship among these codes, a
prolonged face-to-face service may very well have increased postservice
work. We believe that the use of these codes adequately describes the
total service.
CPT code 99375 (Care plan oversight).
Because the current 1.73 work RVUs resulted from a 1995 refinement
panel, we do not see any need to adjust the work RVUs further.
CPT codes 99381 through 99412 (Preventive medicine services).
The work RVUs assigned to these codes were added to the Medicare
physician fee schedule in 1995. Because these codes were recently
valued, we do not believe that we need to review the work RVUs for
them. The intraservice work intensities and the preservice and
postservice work have not changed since 1994 when the work RVUs were
assigned. Because we are not adjusting the work RVUs, we are changing
the rank order of the evaluation and management services. We believe
that the new rank order better reflects the relative complexities of
the office visits for a sick patient and for a healthy patient. For
example, a preventive medicine visit for a 65-year old patient (CPT
code 99397) has work RVUs assigned to it that are between a level-four
and level-five office visit for an established, sick patient (CPT codes
99214 and 99215). In fact, the work RVUs are only 3 percent less than
the new RVUs assigned to CPT code 99215.
CPT codes 99431 through 99440 (Newborn care).
The work RVUs for these services resulted from a multispecialty
refinement panel convened in the summer of 1994. The work RVUs for CPT
code 99435 were assigned last summer. We do not believe that we need to
revise these codes since the work RVUs were recently assigned.
Ophthalmology Codes
We referred comments to the RUC requesting review of the
ophthalmology codes for eye visits. The comments compared the work RVUs
for these codes to the work RVUs for office visits.
The RUC agreed that a permanent link should be established between
the ophthalmological eye examination codes and evaluation and
management services. The RUC recommended that
[[Page 20039]]
the following relationship be established for assigning work RVUs to
the ophthalmological codes:
CPT code 92002 (Ophthalmological services: medical
examination and evaluation with initiation of diagnostic and treatment
program; intermediate, new patient) should have the same work RVUs as
CPT code 99202 (Level-two office/outpatient visit, new patient).
CPT code 92004 (Ophthalmological services: medical
examination and evaluation, with initiation of diagnostic and treatment
program; comprehensive, new patient, one or more visits) should have
the same work RVUs as CPT code 99203 (Level-three office/outpatient
visit, new patient).
CPT code 92012 (Ophthalmological services: medical
examination and evaluation with initiation of diagnostic and treatment
program; intermediate, established patient) should have the same work
RVUs as CPT code 99213 (Level-three office/outpatient visit,
established patient).
CPT code 92014 (Ophthalmological services: medical
examination and evaluation with initiation of diagnostic and treatment
program; comprehensive, established patient, one or more visits) should
have the same work RVUs as CPT code 99214 (Level-four office/outpatient
visit, established patient).
We agree with the relationships in the RUC recommendation. However,
because the work RVUs that we assigned to CPT codes 99202, 99203,
99213, and 99214 are different from the RUC-recommended work RVUs for
these codes, the work RVUs that we have assigned to the
ophthalmological codes are different from the RUC recommendation. We
have assigned the following work RVUs:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 New
CPT code work work
RVUs RVUs
----------------------
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.