Changes Coming to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule in 2019 and Beyond
On Nov. 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a final rule (and an interim final rule) on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS).
December 03, 2018 at 01:56 PM
5 minute read
On Nov. 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a final rule (and an interim final rule) on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS). In addition to addressing payment policies and rates, the final rule includes quality service provisions aimed at realizing a Trump administration strategy focused on increasing accessibility, quality, affordability, empowerment and innovation. Within that broader strategy, many of the changes discussed in the final rule are aimed at reducing administrative burden and increasing payment accuracy.
Before diving into the details of the final rule, it is worth providing some relevant background and definitions. The PFS defines the payments to be made by Medicare for physicians—as the name suggests—but also for other practitioners such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physical therapists. In addition to practitioners, the PFS defines payments made to facilities such as radiation therapy and independent diagnostic testing centers.
The PFS bases payments on what are called relative value units (RVUs), which look at the relative resources that a provider typically uses to provide the services at issue. Such resources include practice expenses, malpractice costs, as well as the practitioner's actual work. There is one more step between establishing RVUs and determining the payment amount. That step is called the conversion factor. Applying the conversion factor to the RVUs gets you the payment rate. In the Medicare payment formula, (which we will mercifully avoid discussing in greater detail in this article), RVUs are adjusted by geography, but the conversion factor is a constant that, when multiplied by the geographically adjusted RVUs, gets you a payment amount. The 2019 conversion factor is $36.04, up slightly from 2018's $35.99 conversion factor.
With the groundwork laid, I will provide some examples of the numerous changes coming in the new year and beyond. Practitioners will no longer be required to justify a home visit versus an office visit by documenting the medical necessity of the former. Regarding medical records, practitioners are given more freedom to focus on changes in the patient's status rather than starting from scratch so long as the records indicate that the practitioner did, in fact, review prior data. Similarly, practitioners need not re-enter information about a patient's complaints and history that has already been entered by an ancillary staff member. Likewise, teaching physicians will no longer be required to include notations in medical records that were previously entered by a resident (or other member of the medical team).
Other changes in CMS's final rule do not take effect until 2021. For example, the final rule creates a single rate for the three levels (levels 2, 3, and 4) of evaluation and management office/outpatient visit that sit between the shortest and simplest (level 1) and the longest and most complex (level 5). Practitioners conducting visits falling within those three levels will also be granted some flexibility with how such visits are documented and will have available to them a new “extended visit” add-on code to account for the additional resources necessary to conduct an extended patient visit. While the 2019 changes seem primarily aimed at trimming unnecessary administrative practices, the 2021 changes appear aimed in large part at providing practitioners with added flexibility.
In terms of modernizing the PFS, the final rule also includes the introduction of two newly defined services focused on technology. The first new code is for brief communication technology-based services such as virtual check-in to determine whether an office visit is necessary. The second allows doctors to enter a payment code specifically for remotely evaluating videos or images provided by patients. CMS is also finalizing new codes related to remotely monitoring chronic care patients and interprofessional consultations via the internet.
For obvious reasons, telehealth is becoming an increasingly favored method of providing care in rural areas. In light of this, the final rule also includes payment for rural health clinics and federally qualified health centers in connection with communication technology-based services and remote evaluations performed by a qualified practitioner without an associated billable visit. Addressing another concern that rural areas are facing, an interim final rule is aimed at expanding the use of telehealth services in connection with substance use disorders, including opioid abuse.
There are some changes to prescription drug reimbursement, as well. Medicare Part B drugs (not to be confused with the optional prescription drug benefit governed by Part D) are typically reimbursed to practitioners using a formula that determines the average sale price of a drug (i.e., the cost) and then adds a 6 percent margin. I use the word “typically” because sometimes Part B drugs are reimbursed at a usually higher amount called the wholesale acquisition cost. Starting in 2019, this discrepancy will be addressed by reducing the margin applied to drugs falling under the wholesale acquisition cost formula from 6 percent to 3 percent during the first quarter of sales when sales data is insufficient to use the average sale price formula. CMS's goal with this change is to limit potentially excessive payments arising from the use of new drugs that have what CMS considers high launch prices.
Rest assured, the foregoing is merely a taste of the thousands of pages of changes coming in 2019 and beyond. While it will take time to peruse the many changes, it is important both for you and your medical practitioner clients (and, in particular, their billing departments) to become familiar with the changes or consult with someone who is.
—Andrew Stein, an associate at Lamb McErlane, who focuses his practice on health and business law, assisted in the preparation of this article.
Vasilios J. Kalogredis is chairman of Lamb McErlane's health law department. He represents many medical and dental groups and thousands of individual physicians and dentists.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWholesale Real Estate Transaction Transparency and Protection Act Takes Effect Jan. 4: What You Need to Know
The Crypto Guys Seem to Like Paul Atkins as a New SEC Commissioner, but Will He Be Good for the Securities Industry?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250