Dataset Information

Geographic Distribution of Nonphysician Clinicians Who Independently Billed Medicare for Common Dermatologic Services in 2014.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) are nonphysician clinicians (NPCs) who can deliver dermatology services. Many of these services are provided independently. Little is known about the types of services provided or where NPCs provide independent care. Objective:To examine characteristics of dermatology care for Medicare enrollees billed independently by NPCs. Design, Setting, and Participants:Retrospective review of the 2014 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File, which reflects fee-for-service payments to clinicians for services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. Clinician location was matched with county-level demographic data from the American Community Survey, US Census Bureau. Clinicians identified using National Provider Identifier as NPs or PAs with at least 11 claims for common dermatology-associated Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System procedure codes were included. Main Outcomes and Measures:Total services provided by service type category, density of dermatologists and nondermatologists who perform dermatology-related services, and geographic location by county. Results:Among the cohort of NPCs were 824 NPs (770 [93.5%] female) and 2083 PAs (1602 [76.9%] female) who independently billed Medicare $59?438?802 and $171?645?943, respectively. Dermatologists were affiliated with 2667 (92%) independently billing NPCs. Most payments were for non-evaluation and management services including destruction of premalignant lesions, biopsies, excisions of skin cancer, surgical repairs, flaps/grafts, and interpretation of pathologic analysis. Nurse practitioners and PAs billed for a similar distribution of service categories overall. A total of 2062 (70.9%) NPCs practiced in counties with dermatologist density of greater than 4 per 100?000 population. Only 3.0% (86) of independently billing NPCs practiced in counties without a dermatologist. Both dermatologists and NPCs were less likely to be in rural counties than in urban counties. Conclusions and Relevance:Nonphysician clinicians independently billed for a wide variety of complex dermatologic procedures. Most independently billing NPCs practice in counties with higher dermatologist densities, and nearly all these NPCs were affiliated with dermatologists. Further study of NPC training and integration with the dermatology discipline is an important part of addressing the changing US dermatology workforce.

SUBMITTER: Adamson AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5833583 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Geographic Distribution of Nonphysician Clinicians Who Independently Billed Medicare for Common Dermatologic Services in 2014.

Adamson Adewole S AS Suarez Elizabeth A EA McDaniel Philip P Leiphart Paul A PA Zeitany Alana A Kirby Joslyn S JS

JAMA dermatology 20180101 1

<h4>Importance</h4>Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) are nonphysician clinicians (NPCs) who can deliver dermatology services. Many of these services are provided independently. Little is known about the types of services provided or where NPCs provide independent care.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine characteristics of dermatology care for Medicare enrollees billed independently by NPCs.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>Retrospective review of the 2014 Medicare Provide ...[more]

PMID: 29167867

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectiveThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimburses clinicians for advance care planning (ACP) discussions with Medicare patients. The objective of the study was to examine the association of CMS-billed ACP visits with end-of-life (EOL) healthcare utilization.DesignPatient-level analyses of claims for the random 20% Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) sample of decedents in 2017. To account for multiple comparisons, Bonferroni adjusted P value <.008 was considered statistically significant.SettingNationally representative sample of Medicare FFS beneficiaries.ParticipantsA total of 237,989 Medicare FFS beneficiaries who died in 2017 and included those with and without a billed ACP visit during 2016-17.InterventionThe key exposure variable was receipt of first billed ACP (none, >1 month before death).MeasurementsSix measures of EOL healthcare utilization or intensity (inpatient admission, emergency department [ED] visit, intensive care unit [ICU] stay, and expenditures within 30 days of death, in-hospital death, and first hospice within 3 days of death). Analyses was adjusted for age, race, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, expenditure by Dartmouth hospital referral region (high, medium, or low), and dual eligibility.ResultsOverall, 6.3% (14,986) of the sample had at least one billed ACP visit. After multivariable adjustment, patients with an ACP visit experienced significantly less intensive EOL care on four of six measures: hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] = .77; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .74-.79), ED visit (OR = .77; 95% CI = .75-.80), or ICU stay (OR = .78; 95% CI = .74-.81) within a month of death; and they were less likely to die in the hospital (OR = .79; 95% CI = .76-.82). There were no differences in the rate of late hospice enrollment (OR = .97; 95% CI = .92-1.01; P = .119) or mean expenditures ($242.50; 95% CI = -$103.63 to $588.61; P = .169).ConclusionBilled ACP visits were relatively uncommon among Medicare FFS decedents, but their occurrence was associated with less intensive EOL utilization. Further research on the variables affecting hospice use and expenditures in the EOL period is recommended to understand the relative role of ACP.

Project description:ImportancePrivate Medicare Advantage (MA) plans recently surpassed traditional Medicare (TM) in enrollment. However, MA plans are facing scrutiny for burdensome prior authorization and potential rationing of care, including home health. MA beneficiaries are less likely to receive home health, but recent evidence on differences in service intensity and outcomes among home health patients is lacking.ObjectiveTo examine differences in home health service intensity and patient outcomes between MA and TM.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was conducted from January 2019 to December 2022 in 102 home health locations in 19 states and included 178 195 TM and 107 102 MA patients 65 years or older with 2 or fewer 60-day home health episodes. It included a secondary analysis of standardized assessment and visit data. Inverse probability of treatment weighting regression compared service intensity and patient outcomes between MA and TM episodes, accounting for differences in demographic characteristics, medical complexity, functional and cognitive impairments, social environment, caregiver support, and local community factors. Models included office location, year, and reimbursement policy fixed effects. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and July 2024.ExposureTM vs MA plan.Main outcomes and measuresHome health length of stay and number of visits from nursing, physical, occupational, and speech therapy, social work, and home health aides. Patient outcomes included improvement in self-care and mobility function, discharge to the community, and transfer to an inpatient facility during home health.ResultsOf 285 297 total patients, 180 283 (63.2%) were female; 586 (0.2%) were American Indian/Alaska Native, 8957 (3.1%) Asian, 28 694 (10.1%) Black, 7406 (2.6%) Hispanic, 1959 (0.7%) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 237 017 (83.1%) non-Hispanic White, and 678 (0.2%) multiracial individuals. MA patients had shorter home health length of stay by 1.62 days (95% CI, -1.82 to 1.42) and received fewer visits from all disciplines except social work. There were no differences in inpatient transfers. MA patients had 3% and 4% lower adjusted odds of improving in mobility and self-care, respectively (mobility odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; self-care OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99). MA patients were 5% more likely to discharge to the community compared with TM (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cross-sectional study suggest that MA patients receive shorter and less intensive home health care vs TM patients with similar needs. Differences may be due to the administrative burden and cost-limiting incentives of MA plans. MA patients experienced slightly worse functional outcomes but were more likely to discharge to the community, which may have negative implications for MA patients, including reduced functional independence or increased caregiver burden.

Dataset Information

Geographic Distribution of Nonphysician Clinicians Who Independently Billed Medicare for Common Dermatologic Services in 2014.

Publications

Geographic Distribution of Nonphysician Clinicians Who Independently Billed Medicare for Common Dermatologic Services in 2014.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets