Posts Tagged fee

E/M Code Changes: A Deeper Dive at What Could be Coming for 2021

Posted by on
E/M Code Changes: A Deeper Dive at What Could be Coming for 2021

This is the second in a series of articles reviewing notable changes in the 2019 Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule and provides a deeper discussion of the potential changes to the E/M Coding regime scheduled to take effect in 2021. For the original article, please see Evaluating and Managing the E/M Codes for 2019 and Beyond.

Brief Recap

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed some major changes to the way Evaluation and Management services are reimbursed in the 2019 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule. The PFS Final Rule[1] adopted some of the proposed changes but scheduled them to take effect in 2021. The commentary on these proposals and CMS’s responses in the PFS Final Rule provide some valuable insight into what CMS is trying to accomplish with the E/M reimbursement changes and what these changes might ultimately look like when made effective in 2021.

Proposals for 2021

Collapsing Reimbursement for Levels 2-4.  CMS has proposed to collapse the reimbursement for E/M level 2 through level 4[2] codes into a single reimbursement amount for office/outpatient settings. To come up with this combined payment rate, CMS is taking the average of the current inputs for determining E/M reimbursement (work RVUs, direct PE inputs, time, and specialty mix) for level 2 through 4 E/M codes, weighted by the frequency with which each code is currently billed (based on the most recent five years of utilization data). For an example of what this new reimbursement structure might look like, see Table 19 and Table 20 below (excerpted from the Final Rule), which compare the 2021 E/M reimbursement methodology to the current methodology for both new and established patients in terms of 2018 dollars:

As you might expect, this new reimbursement structure will likely result in a reduction in overall reimbursement for many physicians who ordinarily bill higher level E/M codes. Fortunately, CMS is proposing new add-on codes (to be billed only with the combined level 2 through 4 visits) with additional reimbursement which should mitigate some of the effects of the new E/M reimbursement structure.

Add-On Codes.  CMS finalized its proposal for new add-on codes to account for primary care and particularly complex visits, as well as extended visits associated with E/M services. CMS indicated that there should not be any additional documentation requirements for these add-on codes (for the most part)[3] and that information already captured on the claim form should suffice to show that the E/M service provided was for primary care.

Primary Care Add-On Code.  CMS proposed an add-on code (GPC1X) to be appended to claims for primary care E/M services. Notably, the add-on code only applies to face-to-face time with patients[4], and it cannot be appended to a global procedure code that encompasses E/M services. CMS expects this add-on code to be used predominantly by primary care practitioners (e.g., family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, and geriatrics), and in fact, indicated that this add-on code would likely be billed for almost all office/outpatient-based E/M services provided by these practitioners. However, CMS also noted that some specialists also function as primary care practitioners (e.g., OB/GYN or cardiologist) and may be able to utilize this add-on code.

Add-On Code for Specialty Professionals with Large E/M Volume.  CMS also proposed an add-on code (GCG0X) for certain specialties which perform mostly high-level (4 or 5) E/M services (rather than procedures) involving “non-procedural approaches to complex conditions that are intrinsically diffuse to multi-organ or neurologic diseases.” CMS originally included certain specialties[5] in the descriptor for this add-on code but has noted that several appropriate specialties[6] were omitted and that the appropriate reporting of this add-on code “should be apparent based on the nature of the clinical issues addressed at the E/M visit, and not limited by the practitioner’s specialty.” CMS also noted that there may be some rare instances where both the primary care add-on code and the specialty professional add-on code could be billed for the same service (provided all the requirements for both codes are met in a single E/M visit).[7]

Extended Visit Add-On Code.  There is also an add-on code (GPRO1) to account for additional resources utilized when physicians have extended visits with patients. This code may be billed if the practitioner spends between 34 and 69 minutes (for established patients) or 38 and 89 minutes (for new patients) of face-to-face time with the patient, regardless of which level (2, 3, or 4) E/M code was reported. Providers will have to note the amount of time spent face-to-face with the patient in order to bill for the extended visit code.

Choice of Documentation Method.  The current (1995 or 1997) E/M documentation guidelines[8] are based on three factors (all of which must be documented): History or Present Illness, Physical Examination, and Medical Decision Making (MDM). Starting in 2021, practitioners will have the option to document E/M services using any one of the following documentation methods: (1) the current (1995 or 1997) guidelines; (2) MDM only; or (3) time only. If practitioners decide to use the existing guidelines or the MDM-only documentation approach, they would only need documentation consistent with the current level 2 E/M service in order to be reimbursed the combined amount for level 2 through 4 E/M services,[9] or consistent with the level 5 documentation requirements where a level 5 E/M code is billed. For practitioners using time as the documentation method, the practitioner must document face-to-face time personally spent with the patient at least equal to the typical time associated with the applicable level of E/M Code.[10]

Regardless of which documentation method practitioners choose, they must still be diligent in documenting medical necessity, as CMS noted several times in the Final Rule that medical necessity would have to be documented in the record regardless of the documentation method the provider chooses. Based on CMS’s comments in the Final Rule, practitioners may expect additional opportunities to comment on the allowable documentation methods in the coming years before the policy is finalized in 2021.

Conclusion

If these proposals move forward over the next several years, it appears there will be substantial disruption not only in how E/M services are reimbursed, but in how they are documented and billed. It is unclear whether these proposals will achieve CMS’s goal of reducing the administrative burden on practitioners, as the proposals simplify E/M coding in some respects and complicate it in others. Either way, practitioners should have the opportunity over the next two years to continue to comment on these proposals in an effort to have CMS modify or refine them before they go into effect in 2021.

Article contributed by Christopher L. Richard with Gilpin Givhan, PC. Gilpin Givhan, PC, is an official partner with the Medical Association.

 

[1] CMS-1693-F, available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-24170.pdf.

[2] CMS originally proposed to collapse the reimbursement for E/M level 2 through 5 services into a single reimbursement amount but for now has decided to keep a separate reimbursement amount for level 5 E/M services to “better account for the care and needs of particularly complex patients.”

[3] For instances where the billing of the appropriate add-on code is not as readily apparent based on the information on the claim form, practitioners should consider additional documentation in the medical record to support the billing of the add-on codes.

[4] There are already add-on codes for non-face-to-face time, such as CCM and BHI codes.

[5] Endocrinology, rheumatology, hematology/oncology, urology, neurology, OB/GYN, allergy/immunology, otolaryngology, cardiology, or interventional pain management.

[6] Nephrology, psychiatry, pulmonology, infectious disease, and hospice and palliative care medicine.

[7] CMS provides an example of a cardiologist in a rural area who provides care for complex cardiac conditions as well as primary care in his or her clinical practice. If the cardiologist provided both primary care services and specialty cardiology services in a given E/M visit, both GPC1X and GCG0X could be billed for the visit.

[8] 1995 Documentation Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services, available at https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNEdWebGuide/Downloads/95Docguidelines.pdf; 1997 Guidelines for Evaluation and Management Services, available at https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNEdWebGuide/Downloads/97Docguidelines.pdf.

[9] For example, under the current guidelines, the practitioner must document: (1) a problem-focused history that does not include a review of systems or a past family or social history; (2) a limited examination of the affected body area or organ system; and (3) a straightforward MDM measured by minimal problems, data review, and risk (two of these three). By contrast, a practitioner using the MDM-only method would only have to document straightforward MDM measured by minimal problems, data review and risk (two of these three).

[10] This approach is consistent with the current policy guidelines that time can only be used as the applicable documentation method for E/M codes where counseling and/or coordination of care accounts for more than 50% of the face-to-face time between physician and patient. The typical time associated with a service or procedure is maintained in the AMA CPT codebook.

Pin It

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted in: CMS

Leave a Comment (0) →

When Is It Wise to Offer Patients a Reduced Fee Schedule?

Posted by on
When Is It Wise to Offer Patients a Reduced Fee Schedule?

Some of our practice management roundtable participants are offering certain patients an opportunity to pay fees of less than the standard fee schedule for their care. Below we will discuss how they are reaching that decision and if it could be appropriate for your practice.

Some patients have no insurance coverage but want to pay for their care. For this group, there is logic to support a price which is less than the standard fee schedule, if that fee schedule is already set above the amounts paid by all insurance companies and Medicare. The fee reduction is based on an acknowledgment that billed fees for health care are generally set at higher amounts than the providers expect anyway, so some discounting is within reason. A problem occurs when your group’s fees are set at precisely the amounts paid by your largest payers and any discount reduces your fee to levels below what insurance companies or government payers pay you. This can get you into big trouble because those payers are willing to pay only your UCR or Usual and Customary Rate, and if you are regularly making a lower rate available to others, the large payers could ask for repayments. However, if your fee schedule is sufficiently high, a discount to an individual might still leave you with enough fee to protect against violating any “most favored nation” clause in your contract with an insurance company.

After this logic is used to support fee reductions to uninsured patients, can it also be applied to patients who are underinsured? Most employers have received significant annual increases in medical insurance premiums for coverage of their employees. As a result, the employers are modifying the coverage to increase the deductibles dramatically. In one client practice, the annual deductibles per person were raised from $750 to $5,000 after premiums increased 18 percent, 18 percent and 15 percent over the most recent three years. As a result, patients are presenting at medical offices with personal liability so great that they are not able to pay for care. Some administrators even indicate that patients are postponing needed care because of their inability to pay for it.

If a practice has made a decision to reduce fees for patients without coverage, and since many patients are facing large deductibles, those physician offices are extending discounts to insured patients who wish to personally pay a lower fee in full at the time of service. Under HIPAA, patients do have the right to pay for care and request that you not file a claim with their insurance company, but there are forms the patient must sign to correctly document this handling.

The danger associated with any discounting is the possibility that all the discounted dollars serve to reduce physician bonuses at year end. The practice overhead will not be reduced by reason of discounting. If these discounts are thought of as the last dollars collected, then they would have been available for MD payment at bonus time. However, if by discounting you are collecting patient payment monies that would otherwise have become a bad debt not collected, then the amounts you receive are incremental money for distribution to doctors at year end. Which of these situations applies to you will depend on whether your group is writing off uncollected patient balances that could have been obtained, in part, at the time of service.

So what is the take away relative to this trend? First, have a practice which is so well known for excellence in care that you may pick the patients you want and avoid discounting fees to anyone. Next, make sure your standard fee schedule is set higher than the reimbursement you receive from your practice’s highest payer. Finally, reach an agreement among all of your physicians on the discounting process you want to consistently apply and implement that process by training all staff. Times are changing in health care and one major change is the shifting of cost risks to the patients from their insurance carriers. Be sure your practice is adapting to this area of change.

Article contributed by Sae Evans, Maddox Casey and Jim Stroud, Members, Warren Averett Healthcare Consulting Group. Warren Averett is an official Gold Partner with the Medical Association.

Pin It

Tags: , , ,

Posted in: Management

Leave a Comment (0) →

CMS Publishes 2019 Physician Fee Schedule

Posted by on
CMS Publishes 2019 Physician Fee Schedule

UPDATED JULY 27, 2018: CMS Overhauls Office Visit Pay In Proposed 2019 Physician Fee Rule

CMS is proposing to overhaul how Medicare pays for office visits and how doctors document those visits in what Administrator Seema Verma said would be “one of the most significant reductions in provider burden ever taken by any administration.” The change, which is included in the proposed 2019 Physician Fee Schedule released Thursday, July 12, would simplify coding and create a single payment amount for “evaluation and management” visits, or E/M visits, and some specialists could see payment reductions as a result. The Medical Association is continuing to analyze the proposed fee schedule to see what potential impact it will have on physician practices in Alabama. We will keep you posted as more information becomes available.

In what industry lobbyists said would be another significant change, the proposed rule also seeks to establish new payment codes for two new virtual services: telephone “check-ins” between clinicians and beneficiaries, and the remote evaluation of photos or videos that a patient submits to a clinician.

In addition, the proposed rule would enact provisions of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 to expand telehealth services for beneficiaries with end-stage renal disease receiving home dialysis and beneficiaries with acute stroke. CMS was expected to use its 2019 pay rules to expand telehealth in Medicare.

Verma touted the proposed overhaul of the E/M payment system as a way to reduce the time that doctors spend “copying, pasting, and clicking” to comply with the current system’s onerous documentation requirements.

“Doctors should not be spending time typing in information strictly to bill a certain level of code,” Verma said on a conference call with reporters.

The proposed rule would change the current system, which has four sets of documentation requirements for physicians, to a system with a single set of documentation requirements. It would establish a single, blended rate for E/M visits–a change that Verma said could result in a 1-2 percent pay reduction for doctors who typically bill at the higher rates under the existing system.

“We believe any negative payment adjustments will be outweighed by the dramatic reduction in administrative burden, allowing clinicians more time to spend with their patients,” Verma said.

The proposed rule also retains a so-called site-neutral policy under which certain off-campus hospital outpatient departments are paid 40 percent of what they would have received under the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System. The American Hospital Association released a statement calling that portion of the proposed rule short-sighted.

The proposed rule includes a request for information on how CMS could make health care costs more transparent. In the 2019 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System proposed rule, CMS said it would require hospitals to post their standard charges online, but the agency said Thursday that it thinks more can be done on price transparency and is seeking suggestions from the public on how it can better inform patients about out-of-pocket costs.

Other provisions in the proposed rule include:

  • Reducing the level of physician supervision required for services provided by radiologist assistants.
  • Allowing payment for communication technology-based services and remote evaluation services furnished by rural health clinics and federally qualified health centers.
  • Discontinuing functional status reporting requirements for outpatient therapy.
  • Implementing a statutory pay reduction for services provided by therapy assistants.
  • Seeking comments on how to combat opioid use disorder in Medicare.

The proposed rule’s conversion factor, a value used in CMS’ formula to calculate payment rates, is $36.05, up from the 2018 conversion factor of $35.99. Public comments on the proposed rule are due Sept. 10.

CMS has published the proposed Physician Fee Schedule Rule for 2019, which includes provisions for the Quality Payment Program for 2019 as well as the physician fee schedule. Medical Association staff is reviewing the proposed rule and would appreciate any comments you might have concerning its contents.

This is a brief summary of the key Medicare Fee Schedule proposals:

  • With the budget neutrality adjustment to account for relative value changes, as required by law, the proposed 2019 PFS conversion factor is $36.05, a slight increase above the 2018 PFS conversion factor of $35.99.
  • CMS has proposed to collapse payment for office and outpatient visits.  New patient office visit (99202-99205) payments would be blended to be $135. Established office visits (99212-99215) would be blended to be paid at $93. New codes would be created to provide add-on payments to office visits for specific specialties ($9) and primary care physicians ($5).
  • To replace existing documentation guidelines, CMS proposes to allow use of (1) 1995 or 1997 documentation guidelines; (2) medical decision-making or (3) time. Documentation for history and exam will focus on interval history since last visit. Physicians will be allowed to review and verify certain information in the medical record entered by ancillary staff or the beneficiary, rather than re-entering the information.
  • When physicians report an E/M service and a procedure on the same date, CMS proposes to implement a 50% multiple procedure reduction to the lower paid of the two services.
  • CMS will implement new CPT codes and payment for remote monitoring and interprofessional consultations.
  • CMS updated supplies and equipment pricing. The re-pricing of antigens has a significant impact on allergy and immunology payments, with an estimated 6% reduction for the specialty.

Here are some of the highlights of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) proposals:

  • Retain the low-volume threshold but add a third criteria of providing fewer than 200 covered professional services to Part B patients.
  • Retaining bonus points for: care of complex patients, end-to-end reporting, small practices
  • Allowing eligible clinicians to opt-in if they meet one or two, but not all, of the low volume threshold criterion.
  • Consolidating the low-volume threshold determination periods with the determination period for identifying a small practice.
  • Eliminate the base and performance categories and reduced the number of measures in the Promoting Interoperability category.
  • Require Eligible clinicians to move to 2015 CEHRT.
  • Providing the option to use facility-based scoring for facility-based clinicians.
  • For 2019 performance year the weights are: Quality  – 45%; Cost- 15%; Promoting Interoperability – 25%; Improvement Activities- 15%

As a reminder, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 provided additional flexibility for CMS on several MIPS issues including:

  • Excluding Medicare Part B drug costs from MIPS payment adjustments and from the low-volume threshold determination;
  • Allowing CMS to reweight the cost performance category to not less than 10 percent and not more than 30 percent for 2019-2021 performance years; and
  • Allowing CMS flexibility in setting the performance threshold for performance years 2019-2021 to provide a gradual and incremental transition for physicians.

 

 

 

 

CMS has provided Fact Sheets on the major components of the rule which are available at the following links:

https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2018-Fact-sheets-items/2018-07-12-2.html

https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Payment-Program/Resource-Library/2019-QPP-proposed-rule-fact-sheet.pdf .

In addition, the specialty impact table from the rule is attached for your information.

Pin It

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted in: CMS

Leave a Comment (0) →

MACRA: Rolled Out and Still Rolling

Posted by on
MACRA: Rolled Out and Still Rolling

Most physicians have, by this point, gained some familiarity with the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). The name of this law has appeared frequently in commentary over the past several years, and the changes it imposes are well on their way. However, many of the details concerning MACRA’s implementation—how it affects physicians on the ground and what they need to do on a practical and technical level in order to comply with its requirements—deserve additional attention. It is, after all, a law that changes much about the Medicare payment landscape, and new guidance from the government continues to appear.

This article will discuss three recent releases from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that concern MACRA, dating from the end of 2017 through the beginning of 2018. There is obviously much more that physicians should note about MACRA as we head further into 2018, but hopefully, this very brief article can serve as a springboard into the many features of this multifaceted new legal scheme.

  1. Starting with the most recent news release, on Jan. 3, 2018, of this year CMS announced that it had launched a new system for clinicians in the Quality Payment Program to submit their 2017 performance data. This system is located on the Quality Payment Program website, and because it replaces an array of former systems on multiple websites, it should make such data submission easier. For most clinicians, the 2017 submission period runs from Jan. 2, 2018, to March 31, 2018. Therefore, exploring this website’s new system for submission — including developing familiarity with the log-in and submission procedures — sooner rather than later is advisable. There are multiple data submission options embedded in the website, and thus having some advance knowledge of the preferred method should benefit a clinician. Eligible clinicians will see in real time the initial scoring, which may later change, for each of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) performance categories as they submit their data. CMS’ news release included a link to a fact sheet on this new system, which can be accessed here.
  2. On Dec. 19, 2017, CMS published the “2018 Medicare Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program Payment Adjustment Fact Sheet for Eligible Clinicians.” The referenced Payment Adjustment relates to the reduced Medicare payments for clinicians who do not demonstrate that they are meaningful users of Certified Electronic Health Record (EHR) Technology. This year is the final year of meaningful-use payment adjustments under the Medicare EHR Incentive Program, but the need to meet EHR standards is not going away: MACRA combines certain aspects of this Medicare EHR Incentive Program with other programs into MIPS, and the basic requirements that established meaningful use will still factor in as a percentage of a clinician’s MIPS score. The MIPS payment adjustments will be applied to Medicare Part B payments in 2019 for the 2017 performance period. CMS’ news release containing additional details can be accessed here.
  3. On Nov. 2, 2017, CMS issued a rule containing updates to the payment policies, payment rates, and quality provisions for services furnished under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for this year. This is not a MACRA-specific rule; instead, it demonstrates how MACRA has already become incorporated into the Medicare payment landscape as a whole. For example, MACRA helped determine the overall update to payments under the Fee Schedule, which is +0.41 percent for this year; the rule discusses the replacement of the Physician Quality Reporting System by MIPS; the rule also discusses the patient relationship code categories required under MACRA. In short, MACRA’s impact on the payment landscape is varied and pervasive. The time for getting up to speed on the practical implementation of this law has certainly arrived.

As noted above, MACRA is here among us, and it touches upon many facets of a physician’s practice. In order to avoid the various causes of decreased reimbursement, it benefits physicians to proactively seek to understand the ongoing requirements ushered in by the law.

Article contributed by Chris Thompson, an attorney at Burr & Forman LLP practicing within the firm’s Health Care Industry Group. Burr & Forman LLP is an official partner with the Medical Association.

Pin It

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted in: Legal Watch

Leave a Comment (0) →

CMS Proposes 2018 Payment and Policy Updates for the Physician Fee Schedule

Posted by on
CMS Proposes 2018 Payment and Policy Updates for the Physician Fee Schedule

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a proposed rule that would update Medicare payment and policies for doctors and other clinicians who treat Medicare patients in the calendar year 2018. The proposed rule is one of several Medicare payment rules for CY 2018 that reflect a broader strategy to relieve regulatory burdens for providers; support the patient-doctor relationship in health care; and promote transparency, flexibility, and innovation in the delivery of care.

The Physician Fee Schedule is updated annually to include changes to payment policies, payment rates, and quality provisions for services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries. In addition to physicians, a variety of medical professionals, including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physical therapists, as well as radiation therapy centers and independent diagnostic testing facilities, are paid under the Physician Fee Schedule.

This proposed rule would provide greater potential for payment system modernization and seeks public comment on reducing administrative burdens for providing patient care, including visits, care management, and telehealth services. The rule takes steps to better align incentives and provide clinicians with a smoother transition to the new Merit-based Incentive Payment System under the Quality Payment Program (QPP). The rule encourages fairer competition between hospitals and physician practices by promoting greater payment alignment, and it would improve the payment for office-based behavioral health services that are often the therapy and counseling services used to treat opioid addiction and other substance use disorders. In addition, the proposed rule makes additional proposals to implement the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation’s Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program expanded model starting in 2018.

These updates would help reduce regulatory burdens and allow practitioners to improve outcomes based on the unique needs of their patients. In addition to the proposed rule, CMS is releasing a Request for Information to welcome continued feedback on the Medicare program. CMS is committed to maintaining flexibility and efficiency throughout Medicare. Through transparency, flexibility, program simplification, and innovation, CMS aims to transform the Medicare program and promote the availability of high-value and efficiently-provided care for its beneficiaries. This will inform the discussion on future regulatory action related to the Physician Fee Schedule.

Click here for a fact sheet on the proposed rule.

Pin It

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Posted in: CMS

Leave a Comment (0) →

2017 Chronic Care Management Changes and Outsourcing Chronic Care

Posted by on
2017 Chronic Care Management Changes and Outsourcing Chronic Care

Medicare’s shift towards value-based care means the traditional model of health care reimbursement has just had a major shakeup. With value-based care, providers’ payments are now based on the value of care physicians deliver to patients and their health outcomes.

Patients with chronic conditions often require greater care outside of the office. Beginning Jan. 1, 2015, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began paying for Chronic Care Management (CCM) services. Requiring at least 20 minutes of non-face-to-face care, providers receive an average reimbursement of $42 per patient per month with two or more chronic conditions. CCM has grown in popularity and many providers are seeing the increase in revenue. However, a number of physicians are still struggling to incorporate chronic care management into their practice. While the CMS requirements of CCM may be overwhelming, chances are many physicians are already managing Medicare patients with two or more chronic conditions and not getting the extra reimbursement to help with the added care.

The 2017 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule rule was finalized on Nov. 2, 2016. Providers will see payment changes for care management services in 2017. There are several changes that CMS has proposed regarding chronic care management. These changes are set to make billing rules within CCM simpler as well as expand the payment for complex CCM, including patients with behavioral health conditions. The new fee schedule rule will offer a new set of codes for providing care management to those patients.

Highlights from the 2017 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule regarding CCM

  • Simplification of CCM billing rules
  • Payment for complex CCM patients (CPT code 99487)
  • Supervision requirement change for CCM by Rural Health Clinics (RHC) and Federally Qualified Health Clinics (FQHC)
  • Pay for non-face-to-face extended E & M services

Part of the simplification of the CCM billing rules means the possibility of no longer requiring a consent form from the patient, but rather the provider would simply document in the patient’s medical record that CCM information was provided to the patient. Another benefit of this final rule is that initiating visits no longer have to be face-to-face office visits, unless the patient is considered a new patient or the patient has not been seen within the year prior to commencement of CCM. However, if providers do initiate CCM on a face-to-face visit, they can use the new GPPP7 to bill for that visit and receive a higher payment of $63.68.

Along with these changes to CCM for 2017, there is also a 3.5 percent increase in the CCM payment rate for 2017. The current rate in 2016 for CPT code 99490 is $40.82. This increase would make the 2017 rate $42.21. For complex CCM payments (CPT code 99487), the proposed rate for 2017 is $92.66. The complex CCM, CPT code 99487 requires 60 minutes of non-face-to-face care per month. CMS has also proposed an add-on code for complex CCM (CPT 99489) for each additional 30-minute increments of non-face-to-face time, at a proposed 2017 rate of $46.87. Please note: reimbursement rates vary by region.

MediSYS has outsourced full-service CCM to ease the burden on providers of meeting the CCM requirements while saving providers time and resources to enhance patient care.

“Providers have been very responsive to outsource chronic care management services because of the additional help they receive that saves them time and brings in additional revenue,” explained Jennifer Woodward, director of operations with MediSYS.

Outsourcing your CCM solution can help you increase revenue and expand patient satisfaction as well as provide you better patient access through a broader clinical depiction. CCM will also prepare providers for 2017 and the changes that MACRA has implemented in the healthcare industry to improve patient care and focus on value-based quality goals.

“With MIPS starting next year, providers are working hard to prepare for the changes that coming. By outsourcing this portion of the program, it provides them more time to work on the other aspects of the quality payment program to report effective care coordination,” Woodward said.

For information on MediSYS electronic health records and practice management solutions as well as outsourcing CCM services, please contact MediSYS at sales@medisysinc.com and visit the website at www.medisysinc.com. MediSYS is an official partner with the Medical Association.

Pin It

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted in: MVP

Leave a Comment (0) →