Some physicians may benefit from future changes in Medicare billing policy as outlined in the proposed Medicare Physician Fee Schedule released earlier in June, but probably not anesthesiologists.
For instance, the overall 2018 proposed increase to payments under the PFS is .31 percent. This updated conversion factor reflects the .50 percent update established under MACRA, and reduced by .19 percent under the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act of 2014’s misvalued code target recapture amount. By applying these adjustments, plus the budget neutrality adjustment for changes in RVUs, to the 2017 PFS conversion factor of $35.89, the proposed 2018 PFS conversion factor is $35.99.
However, for anesthesiologists, the calculation for the 2018 anesthesia conversion factor—$22.0353—actually results in a slight decrease from the 2017 rate of $22.0454.
CMS also has recommended changes to anesthesia codes commonly used during colonscopies.
In 2016, CMS flagged for review two anesthesia procedures that are common during colonoscopies(00740 – Upper GI and 00810 – Lower GI). Later analysis revealed that a separate anesthesia service is reported for more than 50 percent of various colonoscopy procedures. Because of that frequency, CMS labeled the codes as misvalued. For 2018, they are recommending deleting the current CPT codes used for those procedures and creating new codes for anesthesia services furnished in conjunction with and in support of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. They also are adjusting the base units of these procedures. For Upper GI procedures, the base units held steady or increased. However, for lower GI procedures the base units drop by one, which represents a 20 percent reduction.
The following table shows both the old and new procedure codes and how they compare.
|Code||Description||2017 Units||2018 Units|
|00740||Anesthesia for upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, endoscope introduced proximal to duodenum||5||–|
|007X1||Anesthesia for upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, endoscope introduced proximal to duodenum; NOS||–||5|
|007X2||Anesthesia for upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, endoscope introduced proximal to duodenum; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)||–||6|
|00810||Anesthesia for lower intestinal endoscopic procedures, endoscope introduced distal to duodenum||5||–|
|008X1||Anesthesia for lower intestinal endoscopic procedures, endoscope introduced distal to duodenum; NOS||–||4|
|008X2||Anesthesia for lower intestinal endoscopic procedures, endoscope introduced distal to duodenum; screening colonoscopy||–||4|
|008X3||Anesthesia for combined upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, endoscope introduced both proximal to and distal to the duodenum||–||5|
Additionally, CMS is seeking comments on whether to lower 008X2 even further to 3 base units, based on a comparison with other codes with similar post-induction anesthesia intensity allocation (like CPT code 01382 – Anesth dx knee arthroscopy).
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) submitted comments to CMS disputing their underlying assertion that increased usage equates to misvaluation. “CMS itself recognized the importance of screening colonoscopy and took actions that included eliminating beneficiary co-pays and deductibles in many cases for both the procedure and associated anesthesia care to encourage patients to undergo these procedures,” the ASA wrote. “Increased utilization was not driven by a valuation anomaly, but rather by recognition that these services are so important that patients are encouraged to undergo them via use of appropriate payment policies.”
Aligning Quality Reporting
Two other proposed changes to CMS’s quality reporting programs may also impact anesthesiologists.
While the PQRS and Value Modifier programs have been replaced with the MACRA Quality Payment Program’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), physicians may still experience the impact of the PQRS/Value Modifier penalties in 2018, based on the 2016 reporting year. The data for that final reporting year had to be submitted by March 2017, so physicians can no longer adjust their submissions. However, CMS is proposing to modify the performance guidelines to better align the past programs with the new MIPS guidelines. Specifically, CMS is proposing to change the current PQRS program policy that requires reporting 9 measures across 3 National Quality Strategy domains to require only 6 measures.
Likewise, for the Value Modifier, CMS is proposing the following changes:
- reduce the automatic downward payment adjustment for not meeting minimum quality reporting requirements from -4 percent to -2 percent for groups of ten or more clinicians; and from -2 percent to negative -1 percent for physician and non-physician solo practitioners and groups of two to nine clinicians;
- hold harmless all physician groups and solo practitioners who met minimum quality reporting requirements from downward payment adjustments for performance under quality-tiering for the last year of the program; and
- align maximum upward adjustment amounts to 2 times the adjustment factor for all physician groups and solo practitioners.
Finally, CMS is seeking comments regarding documentation guidelines for billing all E/M codes. These changes would have a much less significant impact on anesthesiologists … and maybe no impact at all on many.
Currently, physicians must choose either the 1995 or 1997 guidelines which specify how much information must be documented to support the level of service in each of three categories:
- History of Present Illness (HPI or History);
- Physical Examination (Exam); and
- Medical Decision Making (MDM).
Agreeing with stakeholders, CMS has acknowledged that “there may be unnecessary burden with these guidelines and that they are potentially outdated, … especially … for the requirements for the history and the physical exam.” As well, CMS said the guidelines do not reflect the significant changes in technology over recent years, including electronic health record (EHR) use, “which presents challenges for data and program integrity and potential upcoding given the frequently automated selection of code level.”
CMS is floating a range of possible changes to the history and physical exam guidelines, to “both reduce clinical burden and improve documentation in a way that would be more effective in clinical workflows and care coordination.” Specifically, they are seeking comments on the following options:
- whether to remove documentation requirements for the history and physical exam for all E/M visits at all levels and instead allow MDM and/or time to serve as the key determinant, since “medical decision-making and time are the more significant factors in distinguishing visit levels,” and “the need for extended histories and exams is being replaced by population based screening and intervention, at least for some specialties.”
- whether to simply require documentation that is “generally consistent with complexity of MDM” and no longer include “detailed specifications for what must be performed and documented for the history and physical exam.”
- whether CMS should leave it largely to the discretion of individual practitioners to what degree they should perform and document the history and physical exam.
- how such reforms may differentially affect physicians and practitioners of different specialties, including primary care clinicians, and how to account for such effects.
While CMS currently is considering changes only to history and exam documentation guidelines, they also are receiving comments about future updates to MDM guidelines that would “foster appropriate documentation for patient care commensurate with the level of patient complexity, while avoiding burdensome documentation requirements and/or inappropriate upcoding.”
For more information about the proposed rule, review CMS’s fact sheet or view the proposed rule in its entirety.
Comments on the above or other issues contained in the rule must be submitted no later than 5 p.m. on September 11, 2017. To submit your comments, refer to file code CMS-1676-P and choose one of the following methods (NOTE: CMS will not accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission):
- Electronically through www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “submitting a comment.”
- By regular mail to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1676-P, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244-8013.
- By express or overnight mail to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-1676-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
- By hand or courier to either of the following addresses: 1.) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201 (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.) OR 2.) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 (If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.)
— All rights reserved. For use or reprint in your blog, website, or publication, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.