Proposed CY 2015 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS): What Does It Mean for You?
On July 3, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) posted the proposed Medicare physician fee schedule (MPFS) for calendar year (CY) 2015. Key provisions of the MPFS affecting otolaryngologists, include, but are not limited to, ENT services captured by the CMS misvalued codes screen, CMS’proposal to phase out 010 and 090 globals and convert all codes to 000, and the expansion of clinical quality measures available to ENTs for quality reporting. The Academy submitted comments to CMS on the proposed rule on September 2. The Academy also developed a member summary, which goes into greater detail of all of the important proposed requirements. The summary can be accessed on the Academy’s Regulatory Advocacy page at http://www.entnet.org/content/regulatory-advocacy. Some of the key provisions Members should be aware of from the proposed rule include: Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) Within the proposed rule, CMS projects that the Conversion Factor (CF) for the first three months of CY 2015 will be $35.7977 (compared to the 2014 conversion factor of $35.8228). This estimate is based on a zero percent update (through March 31, 2015), as provided under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) and the adjustments necessary to maintain budget neutrality for the policies in this proposed rule. CMS applies this CF to all of CY 2015 for purposes of completing its regulatory impact analysis. However, absent further Congressional action, a Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR)-induced reduction of more than 20 percent would occur on April 1, 2015. Potentially Misvalued Services As members know, CMS and the AMA Relative Update Committee (RUC) have taken increasingly significant stepsto address potentially misvalued codes. Under the ACA, the Secretary of HHS is directed to examine misvalued services in the seven key categories, including: 1. Codes and families of codes for which there has been the fastest growth; 2. Codes or families of codes that have experienced substantial changes in practice expenses; 3. Codes that are recently established for new technologies or services; 4. Multiple codes that are frequently billed in conjunction with furnishing a single service; 5. Codes with low relative values, particularly those that are often billed multiple times for a single treatment; 6. Codes that have not been subject to review since the implementation of the RBRVS (the so-called ‘Harvard-valued codes’); and 7. Other codes determined to be appropriate by the Secretary. In addition to the Secretary having the authority to identify potentially misvalued codes, the public also is able to nominate codes as potentially misvalued. During the 2014 notice and comment periods, the Academy nominated CPT 41530 (Submucosal ablation of the tongue base, radiofrequency, 1 or more sites, per session) as misvalued. This assertion came after receiving feedback from Members, experts of the Sleep Committee, and other stakeholders that two of the practice expense inputs for the code were outdated and required refinement based on current pricing and technology used. As such, CPT 41530 was identified within the 2015 proposed rule as being potentially misvalued. Not only was CPT 41530 identified, but CMS also identified 10 additional potentially misvalued codes relevant to otolaryngology, using a new screening process that targets codes the usual identification process overlooks. According to CMS, the traditional identification process may miss certain services because the specialty that typically furnishes the service does not have high volume relative to the overall PFS utilization. In response to this gap in the identification, CMS proposes to identify the Top 20 codes by specialty in terms of allowed charges that have not been reviewed since CY 2009. For otolaryngology, CMS identified the following as potentially misvalued using this new screen: 11100 Biopsy skin lesion 11101 Biopsy skin add-on 14060 Tis trnfr e/n/e/l 10 sq cm/< 31575 Diagnostic laryngoscopy 31579 Diagnostic laryngoscopy 92557 Comprehensive hearing test 95004 Percut allergy skin tests 95165 Antigen therapy services According to CMS, review of these codes is necessary to assess changes in physician work, to update direct PE inputs, and because these codes have a significant influence on PFS payment at the specialty level. For these reasons CMS believes review of the relativity of the codes is essential to ensure that the work and PE RVUs are appropriately relative within the specialty and across specialties. Valuation of the Global Surgical Package Also within the 2015 proposed rule is a major change to reporting global surgical procedures. CMS has proposed a two year transition of all 010 and 090 global services to a 000 global, RVUs used to develop PFS payment rates critical need to reflect the most accurate resource costs associated with PFS services. CMS does not believe that maintaining the post-operative 10-and 90-day global periods is compatible with their continued interest in using more objective data in the valuation of PFS services and accurately valuing services relative to each other. Because the typical number and level of post-operative visits during global periods may vary greatly across Medicare practitioners and beneficiaries, CMS believes continued valuation and payment of these face-to-face services as a multi-day package may skew relativity and create unwarranted payment disparities within PFS payment. CMS also believes that the resource-based valuation of individual physicians’services will continue to serve as a critical foundation for Medicare payment to physicians, whether through the current PFS or in any number of new payment models. Therefore, CMS feels it is critical that the RVUs under the PFS be based as closely and accurately as possible on the actual resources involved in furnishing the typical occurrence of specific services. To address these issues, CMS proposes to retain global bundles for surgical services, but to refine bundles by transitioning over several years all 10- and 90-day global codes to 0-day global codes. Medically reasonable and necessary visits would be billed separately during the pre- and post-operative periods outside of the day of the surgical procedure. CMS proposes to make this transition for current 10-day global codes in CY 2017 and for the current 90-day global codes in CY 2018, pending the availability of data on which to base updated values for the global codes. CMS believes that transitioning all 10- and 90-day global codes to 0-day global codes will increase the accuracy of PFS payment by setting rates for individual services based more closely upon the typical resources used in furnishing the procedures. CMS also believes the transition will help avoid potentially duplicative or unwarranted payments, eliminate disparities between the payment for E/M services in global periods and those furnished individually, maintain the same-day packaging of pre- and post-operative physicians’services in the 0-day global, and facilitate availability of more accurate data for new payment models and quality research. As they transition these codes, CMS acknowledges they will need to establish RVUs that reflect the change in the global period for all the codes currently valued as 10- and 90-day global surgery services. Further, if CMS adopts this proposal, they intend to monitor any changes in the utilization of E/M visits following its implementation and seeking comment on potential payment policies that will mitigate such a change in behavior. Due to CMS’proposed timeline with this change in reporting global surgical procedures, these procedures will not be afforded the opportunity of surveying time and intensity information of each for valuation purposes. CMS believes, absent any new survey data regarding the procedures themselves, data regarding the number and level of post-service office visits can be used in conjunction with other methods of valuation to adequately determine the appropriate time and intensity information. Other valuation methods include: Using the current potentially misvalued code process to identify and value the relatively small number of codes that represent the majority of the volume of services that are currently reported with codes with post-operative periods, and then adjusting the aggregate RVUs to account for the number of visits and using magnitude estimation to value the remaining services in the family; Valuing one code within a family through the current valuation process and then using magnitude estimation to value the remaining services in the family; and/or Surveying a sample of codes across all procedures to create an index that could be used to value the remaining codes. Malpractice RVUs CMS is required to review, and if necessary adjust, RVUs no less often than every five years. For 2015, CMS proposes to implement their third comprehensive review of malpractice (MP) RVUs. The proposed MP RVUs were calculated by a CMS contractor based on updated MP premium data obtained from state insurance rate filings. The calculation requires using information on specialty-specific MP premiums linked to a specific service based on the relative risk factors of the specialties that furnish a particular service. MP premium information is weighted geographically and by specialty to account for variations by state and specialty. CMS used three data sources: CY 2011 and 2012 premium data; 2013 Medicare payment and utilization data; and 2015 proposed work RVUs and geographic practice cost indices (GPCIs). CMS describes the steps for calculating the proposed MP RVUs to include the following: 1. compute a preliminary national average premium for each specialty, 2. determine which premium class(es) to use within each specialty, 3. calculate a risk factor for each specialty, 4. calculate malpractice RVUs for each HCPCS code, and 5. rescale for budget neutrality so that the total proposed resource-based MP RVUs equal the total current resource-based MP RVUs. CMS says that, on average, work represents about 50.9 percent of payment for a service under the PFS, PE about 44.8 percent, and MP about 4.3 percent. Quality Reporting Initiatives In the proposed rule, several new initiatives and requirements were brought forth for Physician Compare, the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Meaningful Use (MU) Incentive Program, Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), and Value Based Payment Modifier (VM). While not nearly an exhaustive list, here are a few of the important changes proposed within the various programs: 1. adding additional quality reporting participation and rankings of both individuals and group practices on Physician Compare, 2. not requiring Eligible Professional (EPs) to ensure that their CEHRT products are recertified to meet the most recent version of the electronic specification for CQMs in 2015, 3. additional proposals related to the 2017 PQRS payment adjustment, 4. inclusion of two otolaryngology-specific measures groups in the PQRS program, 5. application of the VM to all physicians, nonphysicians, and groups of physicians, regardless of group size beginning in 2017, and 6. increasing the amount of payment at risk under the VM from -2.0 percent in CY 2016 to -4.0 percent in CY 2017, which when combined with the PQRS penalty creates a total -6 percent penalty for all quality reporting. Members are encouraged to review the more detailed summary of the proposed requirements not only for the programs highlighted above, but also for additional information and changes of other programs within the proposed rule that potentially impact our specialty. Stay informed by visiting the Academy’s Regulatory Advocacy page at http://www.entnet.org/content/advocacy.
On July 3, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) posted the proposed Medicare physician fee schedule (MPFS) for calendar year (CY) 2015. Key provisions of the MPFS affecting otolaryngologists, include, but are not limited to, ENT services captured by the CMS misvalued codes screen, CMS’proposal to phase out 010 and 090 globals and convert all codes to 000, and the expansion of clinical quality measures available to ENTs for quality reporting. The Academy submitted comments to CMS on the proposed rule on September 2. The Academy also developed a member summary, which goes into greater detail of all of the important proposed requirements. The summary can be accessed on the Academy’s Regulatory Advocacy page at http://www.entnet.org/content/regulatory-advocacy. Some of the key provisions Members should be aware of from the proposed rule include:
Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR)
Within the proposed rule, CMS projects that the Conversion Factor (CF) for the first three months of CY 2015 will be $35.7977 (compared to the 2014 conversion factor of $35.8228). This estimate is based on a zero percent update (through March 31, 2015), as provided under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) and the adjustments necessary to maintain budget neutrality for the policies in this proposed rule. CMS applies this CF to all of CY 2015 for purposes of completing its regulatory impact analysis. However, absent further Congressional action, a Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR)-induced reduction of more than 20 percent would occur on April 1, 2015.
Potentially Misvalued Services
As members know, CMS and the AMA Relative Update Committee (RUC) have taken increasingly significant stepsto address potentially misvalued codes. Under the ACA, the Secretary of HHS is directed to examine misvalued services in the seven key categories, including: 1. Codes and families of codes for which there has been the fastest growth; 2. Codes or families of codes that have experienced substantial changes in practice expenses; 3. Codes that are recently established for new technologies or services; 4. Multiple codes that are frequently billed in conjunction with furnishing a single service; 5. Codes with low relative values, particularly those that are often billed multiple times for a single treatment; 6. Codes that have not been subject to review since the implementation of the RBRVS (the so-called ‘Harvard-valued codes’); and 7. Other codes determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
In addition to the Secretary having the authority to identify potentially misvalued codes, the public also is able to nominate codes as potentially misvalued. During the 2014 notice and comment periods, the Academy nominated CPT 41530 (Submucosal ablation of the tongue base, radiofrequency, 1 or more sites, per session) as misvalued. This assertion came after receiving feedback from Members, experts of the Sleep Committee, and other stakeholders that two of the practice expense inputs for the code were outdated and required refinement based on current pricing and technology used. As such, CPT 41530 was identified within the 2015 proposed rule as being potentially misvalued.
Not only was CPT 41530 identified, but CMS also identified 10 additional potentially misvalued codes relevant to otolaryngology, using a new screening process that targets codes the usual identification process overlooks. According to CMS, the traditional identification process may miss certain services because the specialty that typically furnishes the service does not have high volume relative to the overall PFS utilization. In response to this gap in the identification, CMS proposes to identify the Top 20 codes by specialty in terms of allowed charges that have not been reviewed since CY 2009. For otolaryngology, CMS identified the following as potentially misvalued using this new screen:
- 11100 Biopsy skin lesion
- 11101 Biopsy skin add-on
- 14060 Tis trnfr e/n/e/l 10 sq cm/<
- 31575 Diagnostic laryngoscopy
- 31579 Diagnostic laryngoscopy
- 92557 Comprehensive hearing test
- 95004 Percut allergy skin tests
- 95165 Antigen therapy services
According to CMS, review of these codes is necessary to assess changes in physician work, to update direct PE inputs, and because these codes have a significant influence on PFS payment at the specialty level. For these reasons CMS believes review of the relativity of the codes is essential to ensure that the work and PE RVUs are appropriately relative within the specialty and across specialties.
Valuation of the Global Surgical Package
Also within the 2015 proposed rule is a major change to reporting global surgical procedures. CMS has proposed a two year transition of all 010 and 090 global services to a 000 global, RVUs used to develop PFS payment rates critical need to reflect the most accurate resource costs associated with PFS services. CMS does not believe that maintaining the post-operative 10-and 90-day global periods is compatible with their continued interest in using more objective data in the valuation of PFS services and accurately valuing services relative to each other. Because the typical number and level of post-operative visits during global periods may vary greatly across Medicare practitioners and beneficiaries, CMS believes continued valuation and payment of these face-to-face services as a multi-day package may skew relativity and create unwarranted payment disparities within PFS payment. CMS also believes that the resource-based valuation of individual physicians’services will continue to serve as a critical foundation for Medicare payment to physicians, whether through the current PFS or in any number of new payment models. Therefore, CMS feels it is critical that the RVUs under the PFS be based as closely and accurately as possible on the actual resources involved in furnishing the typical occurrence of specific services.
To address these issues, CMS proposes to retain global bundles for surgical services, but to refine bundles by transitioning over several years all 10- and 90-day global codes to 0-day global codes. Medically reasonable and necessary visits would be billed separately during the pre- and post-operative periods outside of the day of the surgical procedure. CMS proposes to make this transition for current 10-day global codes in CY 2017 and for the current 90-day global codes in CY 2018, pending the availability of data on which to base updated values for the global codes. CMS believes that transitioning all 10- and 90-day global codes to 0-day global codes will increase the accuracy of PFS payment by setting rates for individual services based more closely upon the typical resources used in furnishing the procedures. CMS also believes the transition will help avoid potentially duplicative or unwarranted payments, eliminate disparities between the payment for E/M services in global periods and those furnished individually, maintain the same-day packaging of pre- and post-operative physicians’services in the 0-day global, and facilitate availability of more accurate data for new payment models and quality research.
As they transition these codes, CMS acknowledges they will need to establish RVUs that reflect the change in the global period for all the codes currently valued as 10- and 90-day global surgery services. Further, if CMS adopts this proposal, they intend to monitor any changes in the utilization of E/M visits following its implementation and seeking comment on potential payment policies that will mitigate such a change in behavior.
Due to CMS’proposed timeline with this change in reporting global surgical procedures, these procedures will not be afforded the opportunity of surveying time and intensity information of each for valuation purposes. CMS believes, absent any new survey data regarding the procedures themselves, data regarding the number and level of post-service office visits can be used in conjunction with other methods of valuation to adequately determine the appropriate time and intensity information. Other valuation methods include:
- Using the current potentially misvalued code process to identify and value the relatively small number of codes that represent the majority of the volume of services that are currently reported with codes with post-operative periods, and then adjusting the aggregate RVUs to account for the number of visits and using magnitude estimation to value the remaining services in the family;
- Valuing one code within a family through the current valuation process and then using magnitude estimation to value the remaining services in the family; and/or
- Surveying a sample of codes across all procedures to create an index that could be used to value the remaining codes.
Malpractice RVUs
CMS is required to review, and if necessary adjust, RVUs no less often than every five years. For 2015, CMS proposes to implement their third comprehensive review of malpractice (MP) RVUs. The proposed MP RVUs were calculated by a CMS contractor based on updated MP premium data obtained from state insurance rate filings. The calculation requires using information on specialty-specific MP premiums linked to a specific service based on the relative risk factors of the specialties that furnish a particular service. MP premium information is weighted geographically and by specialty to account for variations by state and specialty. CMS used three data sources: CY 2011 and 2012 premium data; 2013 Medicare payment and utilization data; and 2015 proposed work RVUs and geographic practice cost indices (GPCIs). CMS describes the steps for calculating the proposed MP RVUs to include the following: 1. compute a preliminary national average premium for each specialty, 2. determine which premium class(es) to use within each specialty, 3. calculate a risk factor for each specialty, 4. calculate malpractice RVUs for each HCPCS code, and 5. rescale for budget neutrality so that the total proposed resource-based MP RVUs equal the total current resource-based MP RVUs. CMS says that, on average, work represents about 50.9 percent of payment for a service under the PFS, PE about 44.8 percent, and MP about 4.3 percent.
Quality Reporting Initiatives
In the proposed rule, several new initiatives and requirements were brought forth for Physician Compare, the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Meaningful Use (MU) Incentive Program, Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), and Value Based Payment Modifier (VM). While not nearly an exhaustive list, here are a few of the important changes proposed within the various programs: 1. adding additional quality reporting participation and rankings of both individuals and group practices on Physician Compare, 2. not requiring Eligible Professional (EPs) to ensure that their CEHRT products are recertified to meet the most recent version of the electronic specification for CQMs in 2015, 3. additional proposals related to the 2017 PQRS payment adjustment, 4. inclusion of two otolaryngology-specific measures groups in the PQRS program, 5. application of the VM to all physicians, nonphysicians, and groups of physicians, regardless of group size beginning in 2017, and 6. increasing the amount of payment at risk under the VM from -2.0 percent in CY 2016 to -4.0 percent in CY 2017, which when combined with the PQRS penalty creates a total -6 percent penalty for all quality reporting.
Members are encouraged to review the more detailed summary of the proposed requirements not only for the programs highlighted above, but also for additional information and changes of other programs within the proposed rule that potentially impact our specialty. Stay informed by visiting the Academy’s Regulatory Advocacy page at http://www.entnet.org/content/advocacy.