Dataset Information

Legislation Increased Medicare Telestroke Billing, But Underbilling And Erroneous Billing Remain Common.

ABSTRACT: In the Furthering Access to Stroke Telemedicine (FAST) Act, passed as part of a budget omnibus in 2018, Congress permanently expanded Medicare payment for telemedicine consultations for acute stroke ("telestroke") from delivery only in rural areas to delivery in both urban and rural areas, effective January 1, 2019. Using a controlled time-series analysis, we found that one year after FAST Act implementation, billing for Medicare telestroke increased substantially in emergency departments at both directly affected urban hospitals and indirectly affected rural hospitals. However, at that time only a minority of hospitals with known telestroke capacity had ever billed Medicare for that service, and there was substantial billing inconsistent with Medicare requirements. As Congress considers options for Medicare telemedicine payment after the COVID-19 pandemic, our findings, which are consistent with confusion among providers regarding telemedicine billing requirements, suggest that simplified payment rules would help ensure that expanded reimbursement achieves its intended impact.

SUBMITTER: Wilcock AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9188431 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Legislation Increased Medicare Telestroke Billing, But Underbilling And Erroneous Billing Remain Common.

Wilcock Andrew D AD Schwamm Lee H LH Zubizarreta Jose R JR Zachrison Kori S KS Uscher-Pines Lori L Majersik Jennifer J JJ Richard Jessica V JV Mehrotra Ateev A

Health affairs (Project Hope) 20220301 3

In the Furthering Access to Stroke Telemedicine (FAST) Act, passed as part of a budget omnibus in 2018, Congress permanently expanded Medicare payment for telemedicine consultations for acute stroke ("telestroke") from delivery only in rural areas to delivery in both urban and rural areas, effective January 1, 2019. Using a controlled time-series analysis, we found that one year after FAST Act implementation, billing for Medicare telestroke increased substantially in emergency departments at bot ...[more]

PMID: 35254931

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInsured patients who receive out-of-network care may receive a "balance bill" for the difference between the practitioner's charge and their insurer's contracted rate. In 2017, California banned balance billing for anesthesia care. This study examined the association between California's law and subsequent payments for anesthesia care. The authors hypothesized that, after the law's implementation, there would be no change in in-network payment amounts, and that out-of-network payment amounts and the portion of claims occurring out-of-network would decline.MethodsThe study used average, quarterly, California county-level payment data (2013 to 2020) derived from a claims database of commercially insured patients. Using a difference-in-differences approach, the change was estimated in payment amounts for intraoperative or intrapartum anesthesia care, along with the portion of claims occurring out-of-network, after the law's implementation. The comparison group was office visit payments, expected to be unaffected by the law. The authors prespecified that they would refer to differences of 10% or greater as policy significant.ResultsThe sample consisted of 43,728 procedure code-county-quarter-network combinations aggregated from 4,599,936 claims. The law's implementation was associated with a significant 13.6% decline in payments for out-of-network anesthesia care (95% CI, -16.5 to -10.6%; P < 0.001), translating to an average $108 decrease across all procedures (95% CI, -$149 to -$64). There was a statistically significant 3.0% increase in payments for in-network anesthesia care (95% CI, 0.9 to 5.1%; P = 0.007), translating to an average $87 increase (95% CI, $64 to $110), which may be notable in some circumstances but did not meet the study threshold for identifying a change as policy significant. There was a nonstatistically significant increase in the portion of claims occurring out-of-network (10.0%, 95% CI, -4.1 to 24.2%; P = 0.155).ConclusionsCalifornia's balance billing law was associated with significant declines in out-of-network anesthesia payments in the first 3 yr after implementation. There were mixed statistical and policy significant results for in-network payments and the proportion of out-of-network claims.Editor’s perspective

Project description:PurposeRadiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR). However, there are no recent studies analyzing the contributions of specific billing codes to overall RO reimbursement. We compared total MCR for specific Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes in 2019 with MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015, corrected for inflation, to see how the same basket of RO services in 2019 would have been reimbursed in 2010 and 2015 (adjusted MCR).Methods and materialsThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary database was used to obtain MCR data for RO HCPCS codes in 2010, 2015, and 2019. For each code, the total allowed charge was divided by the number of submitted claims to calculate the average MCR per claim in 2010, 2015, and 2019. The 2019 billing frequency for each code was then multiplied by the inflation-adjusted average MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015 to determine what the MCR would have been in 2010 and 2015 using 2019 dollars and utilization rates. Results were compared with actual 2019 MCR to calculate the projected difference.ResultsTotal inflation-adjusted RO MCR was $2281 million (M), $1991 M, and $1848 M in 2010, 2015, and 2019 respectively. This represents a cut of $433 M (19%) and $143 M (7%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. After utilization adjustment, total reimbursement was $2534 M, $2034 M, and $1848 M for 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively, representing a cut of $686 M (27%) and $186 M (9%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivery and planning accounted for $917 M (36%), $670 M (33%), and $573 M (31%) of the adjusted MCR in 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively.ConclusionsMedicare reimbursement decreased substantially from 2010 to 2019. A decline in IMRT treatment reimbursement was the primary driver of MCR decline. When considering further cuts, policymakers should consider these trends and their consequences for health care quality and access.

Project description:ImportanceAs US hospital expenditures continue to rise, understanding drivers of high-severity billing for hospitalized patients among inpatient physicians is critically important.ObjectiveTo evaluate high-severity billing trends of Medicare beneficiaries treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study used Medicare fee-for-service claims of hospitalized patients from 2009 through 2018 to compare the proportion of high-severity billing between general medicine physicians classified as hospitalists vs nonhospitalists across initial, subsequent, and discharge hospital encounters. We compared physicians within the same hospital using hospital fixed effects and adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities. Changes in the billing practices were assessed by investigating differences in slopes using an interaction term between physician type and time. Analyses were conducted between August 2021 and January 2022.ExposuresTreatment by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists.Main outcomes and measuresHigh-severity billing for initial, subsequent, and discharge hospital encounters.ResultsThe sample included 3 121 260 and 1 855 678 Medicare beneficiaries treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists, respectively. In each year, mean age, proportion female, proportion Black and Hispanic dual status, and mean number of chronic conditions were similar among those treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists (standardized mean difference < .01). The number of hospitalists grew by 76%, from 23 390 in 2009 to 41 084 in 2018, whereas nonhospitalists decreased by 43.6% (53 758 to 30 289). The proportion of encounters performed by hospitalists increased for the initial hospital encounters (46.3% to 76%), subsequent encounters (46.8% to 76.7%), and discharge encounters (46.1% to 78.5%) over the 10-year period. The proportion of high-severity billing across the hospital, subsequent, and discharge encounters was consistently higher among hospitalists relative to nonhospitalists across all years. Compared with the trends for nonhospitalists, the proportion of high-severity billing grew by 0.46% per year (95% CI, 0.44% to 0.49%; P < .001) for initial encounters, 0.38% per year (95% CI, 0.37% to 0.39%; P < .001) for subsequent encounters, and by 1.1% per year (95% CI, 1.1% to 1.15%; P < .001) for discharge encounters among hospitalists.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries treated in hospitals, high-severity billing increased over time for hospital encounters at higher rates for hospitalists than for nonhospitalists. These differences do not appear to be explained by patient complexity. The increase in the number of hospitalists over time may be contributing to rising national costs related to hospital care.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral states have passed surprise-billing legislation to protect patients from unanticipated out-of-network medical bills, yet little is known about how state laws influence out-of-network prices and whether spillovers exist to in-network prices.ObjectiveTo identify any changes in prices paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities and to in-network anesthesiologists before and after states passed surprise-billing legislation.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective economic analysis used difference-in-differences methods to compare price changes before and after the passage of legislation in California, Florida, and New York, which passed comprehensive surprise-billing legislation between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, to 45 states that did not. Commercial claims data from the Health Care Cost Institute were used to identify prices paid to anesthesiologists in hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery centers. The final analytic sample comprised 2 713 913 anesthesia claims across the 3 treated states and the 45 control states.ExposuresTemporal and state-level variation in exposure to surprise-billing legislation.Main outcomes and measuresThe unit price (allowed amounts standardized per unit of service) paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities and to in-network anesthesiologists.ResultsThis retrospective economic analysis of 2 713 913 anesthesia claims found that after surprise-billing laws were passed in 3 states, the unit price paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities decreased significantly in 2 of them: California, -$12.71 (95% CI, -$25.70 to -$0.27; P = .05) and Florida, -$35.67 (95% CI, -$46.27 to -$25.07; P < .001). In New York, a decline in the overall out-of-network price was not statistically significant (-$7.91; 95% CI, -$17.48 to -$1.68; P = .10); however, by the fourth quarter of 2017, the decline was -$41.28 (95% CI, -$70.24 to -$12.33; P = .01). In-network prices decreased in California by -$10.68 (95% CI, -$12.70 to -$8.66; P < .001); in Florida, -$3.18 (95% CI, -$5.17 to -$1.19; P = .002); and in New York, -$8.05 (95% CI, -$11.46 to -$4.64; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis retrospective study found that prices paid to in-network and out-of-network anesthesiologists in hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery centers decreased after the introduction of surprise-billing legislation, providing early insights into how prices may change under the federal No Surprises Act and in states that have recently passed their own legislation.

Dataset Information

Legislation Increased Medicare Telestroke Billing, But Underbilling And Erroneous Billing Remain Common.

Publications

Legislation Increased Medicare Telestroke Billing, But Underbilling And Erroneous Billing Remain Common.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets