Dataset Information

The effects of the Medicare NCS reimbursement policy: Utilization, payments, and patient access.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether the 2013 nerve conduction study (NCS) reimbursement reduction changed Medicare use, payments, and patient access to Medicare physicians by performing a retrospective analysis of Medicare data (2012-2016 fee-for-service data from the CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File).

Methods

Individual billable services were identified by Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Current Procedural Terminology and G codes. Medicare use and payments were stratified by specialty and type of service (electrodiagnostic tests, including NCS and EMG, and other neurologic procedures). We also assessed access to Medicare physicians using the annual number of unique beneficiaries receiving initial Evaluation and Management (E/M) services.

Results

We identified 676,113 Medicare providers included in all analysis years from 2012 to 2016 (10,599 neurologists, 5,881 physiatrists, and 659,633 other specialties). Comparing 2016 to 2012 showed that 21.1% fewer neurologists, 28.6% fewer physiatrists, and 69.3% fewer other specialists performed NCS and 3.8% fewer neurologists, 21.7% fewer physiatrists, and 5.6% fewer other specialists performed EMG. For NCS providers in 2012, the mean number of unique Medicare beneficiaries increased for neurologists (1.2%) and physiatrists (4.8%) but decreased for other specialists (-6.5%) by 2016. After the NCS cut, the number of providers performing autonomic and evoked potential testing increased substantially.

Conclusions

The Medicare NCS reimbursement policy resulted in a larger decrease in NCS providers than in EMG providers. Despite fewer neurologists and physiatrists performing NCS, Medicare access to these physicians for E/M services was not affected. Increased autonomic and evoked potential testing may be an unintended consequence of NCS reimbursement change.

SUBMITTER: Reynolds EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7605505 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn 2016, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services initiated the Oncology Care Model (OCM), an alternative payment model designed to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer.ObjectiveTo assess the association of the OCM with changes in Medicare spending, utilization, quality, and patient experience during the OCM's first 3 years.Design, setting, and participantsExploratory difference-in-differences study comparing care during 6-month chemotherapy episodes in OCM participating practices and propensity-matched comparison practices initiated before (January 2014 through June 2015) and after (July 2016 through December 2018) the start of the OCM. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer treated at these practices through June 2019.ExposuresOCM participation.Main outcomes and measuresTotal episode payments (Medicare spending for Parts A, B, and D, not including monthly payments for enhanced oncology services); utilization and payments for hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, office visits, chemotherapy, supportive care, and imaging; quality (chemotherapy-associated hospitalizations and ED visits, timely chemotherapy, end-of-life care, and survival); and patient experiences.ResultsAmong Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, 483 319 beneficiaries (mean age, 73.0 [SD, 8.7] years; 60.1% women; 987 332 episodes) were treated at 201 OCM participating practices, and 557 354 beneficiaries (mean age, 72.9 [SD, 9.0] years; 57.4% women; 1 122 597 episodes) were treated at 534 comparison practices. From the baseline period, total episode payments increased from $28 681 for OCM episodes and $28 421 for comparison episodes to $33 211 for OCM episodes and $33 249 for comparison episodes during the intervention period (difference in differences, -$297; 90% CI, -$504 to -$91), less than the mean $704 Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payments. Relative decreases in total episode payments were primarily for Part B nonchemotherapy drug payments (difference in differences, -$145; 90% CI, -$218 to -$72), especially supportive care drugs (difference in differences, -$150; 90% CI, -$216 to -$84). The OCM was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in total episode payments among higher-risk episodes (difference in differences, -$503; 90% CI, -$802 to -$204) and statistically significant relative increases in total episode payments among lower-risk episodes (difference in differences, $151; 90% CI, $39-$264). The OCM was not significantly associated with differences in hospitalizations, ED visits, or survival. Of 22 measures of utilization, 10 measures of quality, and 7 measures of care experiences, only 5 were significantly different.Conclusions and relevanceIn this exploratory analysis, the OCM was significantly associated with modest payment reductions during 6-month episodes for Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for cancer in the first 3 years of the OCM that did not offset the monthly payments for enhanced oncology services. There were no statistically significant differences for most utilization, quality, and patient experience outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceWomen cardiologists receive lower salaries than men; however, it is unknown whether US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement also differs by gender and contributes to the lower salaries.ObjectiveTo determine whether gender differences exist in the reimbursements, charges, and reimbursement per charge from CMS.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis used the CMS database to obtain 2016 reimbursement data for US cardiologists. These included reimbursements to cardiologists, charges submitted, and unique billing codes. Gender differences in reimbursement for evaluation and management and procedural charges from both inpatient and outpatient settings were also assessed. Analysis took place between April 2019 and December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included median CMS payments received and median charges submitted in the inpatient and outpatient settings in 2016.ResultsIn 2016, 17 524 cardiologists (2312 women [13%] and 15 212 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the inpatient setting, and 16 929 cardiologists (2151 women [13%] and 14 778 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the outpatient setting. Men received higher median payments in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], $62 897 [$30 904-$104 267] vs $45 288 [$21 371-$73 191]; P < .001) and outpatient (median [interquartile range], $91 053 [$34 820-$196 165] vs $51 975 [$15 622-$120 175]; P < .001) practice settings. Men submitted more median charges in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], 1190 [569-2093] charges vs 959 [569-2093] charges; P < .001) and outpatient settings (median [interquartile range], 1685 [644-3328] charges vs 870 [273-1988] charges; P < .001). In a multivariable-adjusted linear regression analysis, women received less CMS payments compared with men (log-scale β = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02) after adjustment for number of charges, number of unique billing codes, complexity of patient panel, years since graduation of physicians, and physician subspecialty. Payment by billing codes, both inpatient and outpatient, did not differ by gender.Conclusions and relevanceThere may be potential differences in CMS payments between men and women cardiologists, which appear to stem from gender differences in the number and types of charges submitted. The mechanisms behind these differences merit further research, both to understand why such gender differences exist and also to facilitate reductions in pay disparities.