Practice Management

On January 1, 2021, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) evaluation and management (E/M) reporting rules changed dramatically, with “bullet counting” no longer necessary and the coding level now based on either the new medical decision making (MDM) table or time spent on all activities relating to the care of the patient on the day of the encounter.¹ This is described in the CPT Professional Edition 2023, a book every practitioner should review annually.² In particular, every provider should read and reread pages 1 to 14—and beyond if you provide services beyond standard office visits. These changes were made with the intent to simplify the process of documentation and allow a provider to spend more time with patients, though there is still a paucity of data related to whether the new system achieves these aims.

The general rule of reporting work with CPT codes can be simply stated—“Document what you did, do what you documented, and report that which is medically necessary” (David McCafferey, MD, personal communication)—and you should never have any difficulty with audits. Unfortunately, the new system does not let an auditor, who typically lacks a medical degree, audit effectively unless they have a clear understanding of diseases and their stages. Many medical societies, including the American Medical Association³ and American Academy of Dermatology,⁴ have provided education that focuses on how to report a given vignette, but specific examples of documentation with commentary are uncommon.

To make your documentation more likely to pass audits, explicitly link parts of your documentation to CPT MDM descriptors. We offer scenarios and tips. In part 1 of this series, we discuss how to approach the “spot check,” a commonly encountered chief concern (CC) within dermatology.

Scenario 1: A Funny-Looking New Spot

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

As was the case before 2021, you still need a CC, along with a medically (and medicolegally) appropriate history and physical examination. A diagnostic impression and treatment plan also should be included.

In this situation, reporting is straightforward. There is no separate E/M visit; only the CPT code 11102 for tangential biopsy is reported. An International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code of D48.5 (neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin) will be included.

Why no E/M code? This is because the biopsy includes preservice and postservice time and work that would be double reported with the E/M. Remember that the preservice work would include any history and physical examination related to the area to be biopsied.

Specifically, preservice work includes:

Inspect and palpate lesion to assess surface size, subcutaneous depth and extension, and whether fixed to underlying structures. Select the most representative and appropriate site to obtain specimen. Examine draining lymph node basins. Discuss need for skin biopsy and biopsy technique options. Describe the tangential biopsy procedure method and expected result and the potential for inconclusive pathology result. Review procedural risks, including bleeding, pain, edema, infection, delayed healing, scarring, and hyper- or hypopigmentation.⁵

Postservice work includes:

Instruct patient and family on postoperative wound care and dressing changes, as well as problems such as bleeding or pain and restrictions on activities, and follow-up care. Provide prescriptions for pain and antibiotics as necessary. Advise patient and family when results will be available and how they will be communicated. The pathology request form is filled out and signed by the physician. Complete medical record and communicate procedure/results to referring physician as appropriate.⁵

The Takeaway—Procedure codes include preservice and postservice work. If additional work for the procedure is not documented beyond that, an E/M cannot be included in the encounter.

Scenario 2: What If We Don’t Biopsy?

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Review risk, benefits, and alternative options. Schedule biopsy. Discuss unique risk factor of sebaceous peau d’orange skin more prone to contour defects after biopsy.

When determining the coding level for this scenario by MDM, 3 components must be considered: number and complexity of problems addressed at the encounter (column 1), amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed (column 2), and risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management (column 3).¹ There are no data that are reviewed, so the auditor will assume minimal data to be reviewed and/or analyzed (level 2, row 2 in the MDM table). However, there may be a lot of variation in how an auditor would address the number and complexity of problems (level 1). Consider that you must explicitly state what you are thinking, as an auditor may not know melanoma is a life-threatening diagnosis. From the perspective of the auditor, could this be a:

• Self-limited or minor problem (level 2, or minimal problem in the MDM table)?¹

• Stable chronic illness (level 3, or low-level problem)?¹

• Undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute illness with systemic symptoms (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute or chronic illness or injury that poses a threat to life or bodily function (level 5, or high-level problem)?¹

• All of the above?

Similarly, there may be variation in how the risk (column 3) would be interpreted in this scenario. The treatment gives no guidance, so the auditor may assume this has a minimal risk of morbidity (level 2) or possibly a low risk of morbidity from additional diagnostic testing or treatment (level 3), as opposed to a moderate risk of morbidity (level 4).¹The Takeaway—In the auditor’s mind, this could be a straightforward (CPT codes 99202/99212) or lowlevel (99203/99213) visit as opposed to a moderate-level (99204/99214) visit. From the above documentation, an auditor would not be able to tell what you are thinking, and you can be assured they will not look further into the diagnosis or treatment to learn. That is not their job. So, let us clarify by explicitly stating what you are thinking in the context of the MDM grid.

Modified Scenario 2: A Funny-Looking New Spot With MDM Descriptors to Guide an Auditor

Below are modifications to the documentation for scenario 2 to guide an auditor:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient prefers the latter.

In this scenario, the level of MDM is much more clearly documented (as bolded above).

The number and complexity of problems would be an undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis, which would be moderate complexity (column 1, level 4).¹ There are no data that are reviewed or analyzed, which would be straightforward (column 2, level 2). For risk, the discussion of the biopsy as part of the diagnostic choices should include discussion of possible scarring, bleeding, pain, and infection, which would be considered best described as a decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors, which would make this of moderate complexity (column 3, level 4).¹

Importantly, even if the procedure is not chosen as the final treatment plan, the discussion regarding the surgery, including the risks, benefits, and alternatives, can still count toward this category in the MDM table. Therefore, in this scenario with the updated and clarified documentation, this would be reported as CPT code 99204 for a new patient, while an established patient would be 99214.

Scenario 1 Revisited: A Funny-Looking New Spot

Below is scenario 1 with enhanced documentation, now applied to our procedure-only visit.

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive 2 gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient wants biopsy. Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

This documentation would only allow reporting the biopsy as in Scenario 1, as the decision to perform a 0- or 10-day global procedure is bundled with the procedure if performed on the same date of service.

Final Thoughts

Spot checks are commonly encountered dermatologic visits. With the updated E/M guidelines, clarifying and streamlining your documentation is crucial. In particular, utilizing language that clearly defines number and complexity of problems, amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and appropriate risk stratification is crucial to ensuring appropriate reimbursement and minimizing your pain with audits.

On January 1, 2021, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) evaluation and management (E/M) reporting rules changed dramatically, with “bullet counting” no longer necessary and the coding level now based on either the new medical decision making (MDM) table or time spent on all activities relating to the care of the patient on the day of the encounter.¹ This is described in the CPT Professional Edition 2023, a book every practitioner should review annually.² In particular, every provider should read and reread pages 1 to 14—and beyond if you provide services beyond standard office visits. These changes were made with the intent to simplify the process of documentation and allow a provider to spend more time with patients, though there is still a paucity of data related to whether the new system achieves these aims.

The general rule of reporting work with CPT codes can be simply stated—“Document what you did, do what you documented, and report that which is medically necessary” (David McCafferey, MD, personal communication)—and you should never have any difficulty with audits. Unfortunately, the new system does not let an auditor, who typically lacks a medical degree, audit effectively unless they have a clear understanding of diseases and their stages. Many medical societies, including the American Medical Association³ and American Academy of Dermatology,⁴ have provided education that focuses on how to report a given vignette, but specific examples of documentation with commentary are uncommon.

To make your documentation more likely to pass audits, explicitly link parts of your documentation to CPT MDM descriptors. We offer scenarios and tips. In part 1 of this series, we discuss how to approach the “spot check,” a commonly encountered chief concern (CC) within dermatology.

Scenario 1: A Funny-Looking New Spot

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

As was the case before 2021, you still need a CC, along with a medically (and medicolegally) appropriate history and physical examination. A diagnostic impression and treatment plan also should be included.

In this situation, reporting is straightforward. There is no separate E/M visit; only the CPT code 11102 for tangential biopsy is reported. An International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code of D48.5 (neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin) will be included.

Why no E/M code? This is because the biopsy includes preservice and postservice time and work that would be double reported with the E/M. Remember that the preservice work would include any history and physical examination related to the area to be biopsied.

Specifically, preservice work includes:

Inspect and palpate lesion to assess surface size, subcutaneous depth and extension, and whether fixed to underlying structures. Select the most representative and appropriate site to obtain specimen. Examine draining lymph node basins. Discuss need for skin biopsy and biopsy technique options. Describe the tangential biopsy procedure method and expected result and the potential for inconclusive pathology result. Review procedural risks, including bleeding, pain, edema, infection, delayed healing, scarring, and hyper- or hypopigmentation.⁵

Postservice work includes:

Instruct patient and family on postoperative wound care and dressing changes, as well as problems such as bleeding or pain and restrictions on activities, and follow-up care. Provide prescriptions for pain and antibiotics as necessary. Advise patient and family when results will be available and how they will be communicated. The pathology request form is filled out and signed by the physician. Complete medical record and communicate procedure/results to referring physician as appropriate.⁵

The Takeaway—Procedure codes include preservice and postservice work. If additional work for the procedure is not documented beyond that, an E/M cannot be included in the encounter.

Scenario 2: What If We Don’t Biopsy?

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Review risk, benefits, and alternative options. Schedule biopsy. Discuss unique risk factor of sebaceous peau d’orange skin more prone to contour defects after biopsy.

When determining the coding level for this scenario by MDM, 3 components must be considered: number and complexity of problems addressed at the encounter (column 1), amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed (column 2), and risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management (column 3).¹ There are no data that are reviewed, so the auditor will assume minimal data to be reviewed and/or analyzed (level 2, row 2 in the MDM table). However, there may be a lot of variation in how an auditor would address the number and complexity of problems (level 1). Consider that you must explicitly state what you are thinking, as an auditor may not know melanoma is a life-threatening diagnosis. From the perspective of the auditor, could this be a:

• Self-limited or minor problem (level 2, or minimal problem in the MDM table)?¹

• Stable chronic illness (level 3, or low-level problem)?¹

• Undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute illness with systemic symptoms (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute or chronic illness or injury that poses a threat to life or bodily function (level 5, or high-level problem)?¹

• All of the above?

Similarly, there may be variation in how the risk (column 3) would be interpreted in this scenario. The treatment gives no guidance, so the auditor may assume this has a minimal risk of morbidity (level 2) or possibly a low risk of morbidity from additional diagnostic testing or treatment (level 3), as opposed to a moderate risk of morbidity (level 4).¹The Takeaway—In the auditor’s mind, this could be a straightforward (CPT codes 99202/99212) or lowlevel (99203/99213) visit as opposed to a moderate-level (99204/99214) visit. From the above documentation, an auditor would not be able to tell what you are thinking, and you can be assured they will not look further into the diagnosis or treatment to learn. That is not their job. So, let us clarify by explicitly stating what you are thinking in the context of the MDM grid.

Modified Scenario 2: A Funny-Looking New Spot With MDM Descriptors to Guide an Auditor

Below are modifications to the documentation for scenario 2 to guide an auditor:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient prefers the latter.

In this scenario, the level of MDM is much more clearly documented (as bolded above).

The number and complexity of problems would be an undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis, which would be moderate complexity (column 1, level 4).¹ There are no data that are reviewed or analyzed, which would be straightforward (column 2, level 2). For risk, the discussion of the biopsy as part of the diagnostic choices should include discussion of possible scarring, bleeding, pain, and infection, which would be considered best described as a decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors, which would make this of moderate complexity (column 3, level 4).¹

Importantly, even if the procedure is not chosen as the final treatment plan, the discussion regarding the surgery, including the risks, benefits, and alternatives, can still count toward this category in the MDM table. Therefore, in this scenario with the updated and clarified documentation, this would be reported as CPT code 99204 for a new patient, while an established patient would be 99214.

Scenario 1 Revisited: A Funny-Looking New Spot

Below is scenario 1 with enhanced documentation, now applied to our procedure-only visit.

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive 2 gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient wants biopsy. Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

This documentation would only allow reporting the biopsy as in Scenario 1, as the decision to perform a 0- or 10-day global procedure is bundled with the procedure if performed on the same date of service.

Final Thoughts

Spot checks are commonly encountered dermatologic visits. With the updated E/M guidelines, clarifying and streamlining your documentation is crucial. In particular, utilizing language that clearly defines number and complexity of problems, amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and appropriate risk stratification is crucial to ensuring appropriate reimbursement and minimizing your pain with audits.

On January 1, 2021, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) evaluation and management (E/M) reporting rules changed dramatically, with “bullet counting” no longer necessary and the coding level now based on either the new medical decision making (MDM) table or time spent on all activities relating to the care of the patient on the day of the encounter.¹ This is described in the CPT Professional Edition 2023, a book every practitioner should review annually.² In particular, every provider should read and reread pages 1 to 14—and beyond if you provide services beyond standard office visits. These changes were made with the intent to simplify the process of documentation and allow a provider to spend more time with patients, though there is still a paucity of data related to whether the new system achieves these aims.

The general rule of reporting work with CPT codes can be simply stated—“Document what you did, do what you documented, and report that which is medically necessary” (David McCafferey, MD, personal communication)—and you should never have any difficulty with audits. Unfortunately, the new system does not let an auditor, who typically lacks a medical degree, audit effectively unless they have a clear understanding of diseases and their stages. Many medical societies, including the American Medical Association³ and American Academy of Dermatology,⁴ have provided education that focuses on how to report a given vignette, but specific examples of documentation with commentary are uncommon.

To make your documentation more likely to pass audits, explicitly link parts of your documentation to CPT MDM descriptors. We offer scenarios and tips. In part 1 of this series, we discuss how to approach the “spot check,” a commonly encountered chief concern (CC) within dermatology.

Scenario 1: A Funny-Looking New Spot

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

As was the case before 2021, you still need a CC, along with a medically (and medicolegally) appropriate history and physical examination. A diagnostic impression and treatment plan also should be included.

In this situation, reporting is straightforward. There is no separate E/M visit; only the CPT code 11102 for tangential biopsy is reported. An International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code of D48.5 (neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin) will be included.

Why no E/M code? This is because the biopsy includes preservice and postservice time and work that would be double reported with the E/M. Remember that the preservice work would include any history and physical examination related to the area to be biopsied.

Specifically, preservice work includes:

Inspect and palpate lesion to assess surface size, subcutaneous depth and extension, and whether fixed to underlying structures. Select the most representative and appropriate site to obtain specimen. Examine draining lymph node basins. Discuss need for skin biopsy and biopsy technique options. Describe the tangential biopsy procedure method and expected result and the potential for inconclusive pathology result. Review procedural risks, including bleeding, pain, edema, infection, delayed healing, scarring, and hyper- or hypopigmentation.⁵

Postservice work includes:

Instruct patient and family on postoperative wound care and dressing changes, as well as problems such as bleeding or pain and restrictions on activities, and follow-up care. Provide prescriptions for pain and antibiotics as necessary. Advise patient and family when results will be available and how they will be communicated. The pathology request form is filled out and signed by the physician. Complete medical record and communicate procedure/results to referring physician as appropriate.⁵

The Takeaway—Procedure codes include preservice and postservice work. If additional work for the procedure is not documented beyond that, an E/M cannot be included in the encounter.

Scenario 2: What If We Don’t Biopsy?

A 34-year-old presents with a new spot on the left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly. You examine the patient and discuss treatment options. The documentation reads as follows:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma.

• Plan: Review risk, benefits, and alternative options. Schedule biopsy. Discuss unique risk factor of sebaceous peau d’orange skin more prone to contour defects after biopsy.

When determining the coding level for this scenario by MDM, 3 components must be considered: number and complexity of problems addressed at the encounter (column 1), amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed (column 2), and risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management (column 3).¹ There are no data that are reviewed, so the auditor will assume minimal data to be reviewed and/or analyzed (level 2, row 2 in the MDM table). However, there may be a lot of variation in how an auditor would address the number and complexity of problems (level 1). Consider that you must explicitly state what you are thinking, as an auditor may not know melanoma is a life-threatening diagnosis. From the perspective of the auditor, could this be a:

• Self-limited or minor problem (level 2, or minimal problem in the MDM table)?¹

• Stable chronic illness (level 3, or low-level problem)?¹

• Undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute illness with systemic symptoms (level 4, or moderate level problem)?¹

• Acute or chronic illness or injury that poses a threat to life or bodily function (level 5, or high-level problem)?¹

• All of the above?

Similarly, there may be variation in how the risk (column 3) would be interpreted in this scenario. The treatment gives no guidance, so the auditor may assume this has a minimal risk of morbidity (level 2) or possibly a low risk of morbidity from additional diagnostic testing or treatment (level 3), as opposed to a moderate risk of morbidity (level 4).¹The Takeaway—In the auditor’s mind, this could be a straightforward (CPT codes 99202/99212) or lowlevel (99203/99213) visit as opposed to a moderate-level (99204/99214) visit. From the above documentation, an auditor would not be able to tell what you are thinking, and you can be assured they will not look further into the diagnosis or treatment to learn. That is not their job. So, let us clarify by explicitly stating what you are thinking in the context of the MDM grid.

Modified Scenario 2: A Funny-Looking New Spot With MDM Descriptors to Guide an Auditor

Below are modifications to the documentation for scenario 2 to guide an auditor:

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient prefers the latter.

In this scenario, the level of MDM is much more clearly documented (as bolded above).

The number and complexity of problems would be an undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis, which would be moderate complexity (column 1, level 4).¹ There are no data that are reviewed or analyzed, which would be straightforward (column 2, level 2). For risk, the discussion of the biopsy as part of the diagnostic choices should include discussion of possible scarring, bleeding, pain, and infection, which would be considered best described as a decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors, which would make this of moderate complexity (column 3, level 4).¹

Importantly, even if the procedure is not chosen as the final treatment plan, the discussion regarding the surgery, including the risks, benefits, and alternatives, can still count toward this category in the MDM table. Therefore, in this scenario with the updated and clarified documentation, this would be reported as CPT code 99204 for a new patient, while an established patient would be 99214.

Scenario 1 Revisited: A Funny-Looking New Spot

Below is scenario 1 with enhanced documentation, now applied to our procedure-only visit.

• CC: New spot on left cheek that seems to be growing and changing shape rapidly.

• History: No family history of skin cancer; concerned about scarring, no blood thinner.

• Examination: Irregular tan to brown to black 8-mm macule. No lymphadenopathy.

• Impression: rule out melanoma (undiagnosed new problem with uncertain prognosis).

• Plan: Discuss risks, benefits, and alternatives, including biopsy (decision regarding minor surgery with identified patient or procedure risk factors) vs a noninvasive 2 gene expression profiling melanoma rule-out test. Patient wants biopsy. Consent, biopsy via shave technique. Lidocaine hydrochloride 1% with epinephrine, 1 cc, prepare and drape, hemostasis obtained, ointment and bandage applied, and care instructions provided.

This documentation would only allow reporting the biopsy as in Scenario 1, as the decision to perform a 0- or 10-day global procedure is bundled with the procedure if performed on the same date of service.

Final Thoughts

Spot checks are commonly encountered dermatologic visits. With the updated E/M guidelines, clarifying and streamlining your documentation is crucial. In particular, utilizing language that clearly defines number and complexity of problems, amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed, and appropriate risk stratification is crucial to ensuring appropriate reimbursement and minimizing your pain with audits.

Attending psychiatrists who work night shift in a psychiatric emergency department (ED) or medical ED require a different set of skills than when working daytime or evening shifts, especially when working full-time or solo. While all patients should be treated carefully and meticulously regardless of the shift, this article offers tips for efficiency for solo attending psychiatrists who work night shift in an ED.

Check orders. Typically, multiple psychiatric clinicians are available on other shifts, but only 1 at night. This can lead to significant variability and potential errors in patients’ orders. Such errors filter down to night shift and often must be addressed by the solo clinician, who can’t say “that person is not my patient” because there are no other clinicians available to help. Carefully check orders (ideally, on all patients every shift) to ensure there are no errors or omissions.

Use note templates. While it is important to avoid using mere checklists, with electronic medical record systems, create templates for typical notes. This will save time when the pace of patients increases.

Be brief in your documentation. Brevity is key when documenting at night. Focus on what is necessary and sufficient.

Conduct thorough but efficient interviews. Be aware of how much time you spend on patient interviews. While still thorough, interviews must often be shorter due to a higher staff-to-patient ratio at night.

Be aware of potential medical issues. Many psychiatric EDs are not attached to a hospital. With other medical consultants not readily available in the middle of the night, be particularly alert for any acute medical issues that may arise, and act accordingly.

Focus on the order of tasks. Be aware of which tasks you complete and in what order. For example, at night you may need to medicate sooner for agitation because other patients are sleeping, instead of letting one patient’s agitation disrupt the entire night milieu.

Continue to: Don't let tasks pile up

Don’t let tasks pile up. Time management and multitasking are key skills at night. Take care of clinical issues as they arise. Finish documentation as you go along. Don’t let things pile up throughout your shift and then spend significant time after your shift to catch up.

Know your staff. The staff around you are your eyes and ears. Get to know your clinical and nonclinical staff’s tendencies. This can be immensely helpful in picking up any different patterns when interviewing and observing patients.

Know your limits. You may not be able to solve everything or obtain the ideal collateral at night. Don’t get caught up in definitively trying to resolve things and end up wasting precious time at night. Let it go. Don’t overthink. If all else fails, hold the patient overnight.

Prioritize self-care. Night shift work has been shown to negatively impact one’s health.^1-3 If you choose this type of work, either part-time or full-time, maintain your own health by exercising regularly, eating a healthy diet, obtaining adequate rest between shifts, and seeing your health care team often.

Attending psychiatrists who work night shift in a psychiatric emergency department (ED) or medical ED require a different set of skills than when working daytime or evening shifts, especially when working full-time or solo. While all patients should be treated carefully and meticulously regardless of the shift, this article offers tips for efficiency for solo attending psychiatrists who work night shift in an ED.

Check orders. Typically, multiple psychiatric clinicians are available on other shifts, but only 1 at night. This can lead to significant variability and potential errors in patients’ orders. Such errors filter down to night shift and often must be addressed by the solo clinician, who can’t say “that person is not my patient” because there are no other clinicians available to help. Carefully check orders (ideally, on all patients every shift) to ensure there are no errors or omissions.

Use note templates. While it is important to avoid using mere checklists, with electronic medical record systems, create templates for typical notes. This will save time when the pace of patients increases.

Be brief in your documentation. Brevity is key when documenting at night. Focus on what is necessary and sufficient.

Conduct thorough but efficient interviews. Be aware of how much time you spend on patient interviews. While still thorough, interviews must often be shorter due to a higher staff-to-patient ratio at night.

Be aware of potential medical issues. Many psychiatric EDs are not attached to a hospital. With other medical consultants not readily available in the middle of the night, be particularly alert for any acute medical issues that may arise, and act accordingly.

Focus on the order of tasks. Be aware of which tasks you complete and in what order. For example, at night you may need to medicate sooner for agitation because other patients are sleeping, instead of letting one patient’s agitation disrupt the entire night milieu.

Continue to: Don't let tasks pile up

Don’t let tasks pile up. Time management and multitasking are key skills at night. Take care of clinical issues as they arise. Finish documentation as you go along. Don’t let things pile up throughout your shift and then spend significant time after your shift to catch up.

Know your staff. The staff around you are your eyes and ears. Get to know your clinical and nonclinical staff’s tendencies. This can be immensely helpful in picking up any different patterns when interviewing and observing patients.

Know your limits. You may not be able to solve everything or obtain the ideal collateral at night. Don’t get caught up in definitively trying to resolve things and end up wasting precious time at night. Let it go. Don’t overthink. If all else fails, hold the patient overnight.

Prioritize self-care. Night shift work has been shown to negatively impact one’s health.^1-3 If you choose this type of work, either part-time or full-time, maintain your own health by exercising regularly, eating a healthy diet, obtaining adequate rest between shifts, and seeing your health care team often.

Attending psychiatrists who work night shift in a psychiatric emergency department (ED) or medical ED require a different set of skills than when working daytime or evening shifts, especially when working full-time or solo. While all patients should be treated carefully and meticulously regardless of the shift, this article offers tips for efficiency for solo attending psychiatrists who work night shift in an ED.

Check orders. Typically, multiple psychiatric clinicians are available on other shifts, but only 1 at night. This can lead to significant variability and potential errors in patients’ orders. Such errors filter down to night shift and often must be addressed by the solo clinician, who can’t say “that person is not my patient” because there are no other clinicians available to help. Carefully check orders (ideally, on all patients every shift) to ensure there are no errors or omissions.

Use note templates. While it is important to avoid using mere checklists, with electronic medical record systems, create templates for typical notes. This will save time when the pace of patients increases.

Be brief in your documentation. Brevity is key when documenting at night. Focus on what is necessary and sufficient.

Conduct thorough but efficient interviews. Be aware of how much time you spend on patient interviews. While still thorough, interviews must often be shorter due to a higher staff-to-patient ratio at night.

Be aware of potential medical issues. Many psychiatric EDs are not attached to a hospital. With other medical consultants not readily available in the middle of the night, be particularly alert for any acute medical issues that may arise, and act accordingly.

Focus on the order of tasks. Be aware of which tasks you complete and in what order. For example, at night you may need to medicate sooner for agitation because other patients are sleeping, instead of letting one patient’s agitation disrupt the entire night milieu.

Continue to: Don't let tasks pile up

Don’t let tasks pile up. Time management and multitasking are key skills at night. Take care of clinical issues as they arise. Finish documentation as you go along. Don’t let things pile up throughout your shift and then spend significant time after your shift to catch up.

Know your staff. The staff around you are your eyes and ears. Get to know your clinical and nonclinical staff’s tendencies. This can be immensely helpful in picking up any different patterns when interviewing and observing patients.

Know your limits. You may not be able to solve everything or obtain the ideal collateral at night. Don’t get caught up in definitively trying to resolve things and end up wasting precious time at night. Let it go. Don’t overthink. If all else fails, hold the patient overnight.

Prioritize self-care. Night shift work has been shown to negatively impact one’s health.^1-3 If you choose this type of work, either part-time or full-time, maintain your own health by exercising regularly, eating a healthy diet, obtaining adequate rest between shifts, and seeing your health care team often.

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

General and orthopedic surgeons and intensivists earn the highest net reimbursements from private U.S. insurers, a new report estimates.

On average in 2021, they were paid $5.8 million, $4.9 million, and $3.3 million, respectively, according to figures compiled by AMN Healthcare, a Dallas-based health staffing company.

None of 15 other physician specialties topped $3 million in net reimbursement on average, and three – dermatology, pediatrics, and family medicine – didn’t reach $1 million.

The report doesn’t include data about reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and its numbers assume that 50% of insurance claims are denied. Denial rates differ from practice to practice.

Still, the findings offer a “benchmark tool” to help clinicians understand how they rank against their peers, Linda Murphy, president of AMN Healthcare’s Revenue Cycle Solutions division, said in an interview.

This is the first year that the company has calculated physician reimbursement levels by using claim and clearinghouse data, Ms. Murphy said. Previously, a division of the firm compiled data by surveying chief financial officers from hospitals.

The report’s estimate that insurers deny 50% of claims is “conservative,” Ms. Murphy said. Miscoding is a significant factor behind that number.

The estimated 2021 net private insurance reimbursements by specialty for direct services, assuming a 50% denial rate:

• Anesthesiology: $1,665,510
• Cardiology: $1,703,013
• Critical Care (intensivist): $3,338,656
• Dermatology: $729,107
• Family medicine: $697,094
• Gastroenterology: $2,765,110
• Internal medicine: $1,297,200
• Neurology: $1,390,181
• Obstetrician/gynecology: $1,880,888
• Otolaryngology: $2,095,277
• Pediatrics: $661,552
• Psychiatry: $1,348,730
• Pulmonology: $1,561,617
• Radiology: $1,015,750
• Rheumatology: $1,705,140
• General surgery: $5,834,508
• Orthopedic surgery: $4,904,757
• Urology: $2,943,381

Among 18 physician specialties overall, the report estimated that the average net reimbursement in 2021 was $1.9 million.

The report also estimated that the net reimbursement amounts at $875,140 for certified registered nurse anesthetists and $388,696 for nurse practitioners.

Surprisingly, Ms. Murphy said, there’s “a really large swing” among reimbursement levels for individual specialties. The quartile of cardiologists with the lowest level of reimbursement, for example, submitted $2.1 million in claims in 2021, netting about $1 million at a 50% denial rate versus the $7.3 million made by those in the highest quartile, netting about $3.6 million.

The gap seems to be due to regional variations, she said, adding that a rural cardiologist will have different billing practices than does one practicing in New York City.

The quartile of general surgeons with the highest reimbursement levels billed for $21.1 million on average in 2021, making about $10.5 million at a 50% denial rate. The lowest quartile billed for $5.5 million, making about $2.7 million at a 50% denial rate.

The report noted that primary care physicians – that is, family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics specialists – have much lower levels of reimbursement, compared with most other specialties. But the work of primary care physicians “may lead to considerable ‘downstream revenue’ through the hospital admissions, tests and treatment they order.”

A previous analysis by a division of AMN Healthcare found that primary care physicians, on average, generate $2,113,273 a year in net annual revenue for their affiliated hospitals, nearing the $2,446,429 in net annual hospital revenue generated by specialists.

AMN Healthcare is preparing another report that will examine Medicare reimbursements, Ms. Murphy said. According to the new report, payments by nonprivate insurers amount to about one-third of the total amount of reimbursement by commercial insurers.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its annual update to the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) and long-term care hospital (LTCH) PPS on April 10, with many changes centered around improving health equity and quality as well as alleviating rural clinician shortages.

“This proposed rule reflects our person-centric approach to better measure health care quality and safety in hospitals to reduce preventable harm and our commitment to ensure that people with Medicare in rural and underserved areas have improved access to high-quality health care,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement.

Here are 14 things to know about the fiscal year (FY) 2024 proposal:

1. New payment rate: Acute-care hospitals that report inpatient quality data and participate in the EHR Meaningful Use program will receive a 2.8% net increase in payment rates. The rate adjustment will send approximately $3.3 billion more funding to hospitals compared with 2023.

2. LTCH payments: CMS projects that the LTCH standard payment rate will increase by 2.9%, whereas discharge payments will decrease by 2.5% or $59 million.

3. Disproportionate share hospital payments: Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments and Medicare uncompensated care payments will decrease by about $115 million for FY 2024.

4. Health equity categories: CMS proposes adding 15 new health equity hospital categorizations for IPPS payments to advance the goals of its Framework for Health Equity initiative.   

5. Social determinants of health codes: To reflect increased resource utilization, the severity designation for the three International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes describing homelessness will change from noncomplication or comorbidity to complication or comorbidity.

6. Rural emergency hospitals: The proposed rule will allow designated rural emergency hospitals to serve as training sites and receive Medicare graduate medical education payments to address concerns over rural hospital closures.

7. COVID treatment add-on payments: If the public health emergency ends in May, add-on payments for discharges involving eligible products like convalescent plasma and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir will expire on Sept. 30.

8. Technology add-on payments: Requests for new technology add-on payments must include a complete, active Food and Drug Administration market authorization application. Beginning with FY 2025 applications, the FDA approval deadline will move from July 1 to May 1.

9. Physician-owned hospitals: To receive Medicare payment for services referred by a physician owner or investor, the hospital must satisfy all requirements of the whole hospital exception or the rural provider exception to the Stark Law. In either case, a hospital may not increase the aggregate number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds above the level it was licensed for on March 23, 2010, unless CMS grants an exception.

10. Electronic clinical quality measures: The new rule will remove and modify several existing electronic clinical quality measures and add three new ones: hospital harm, pressure injury; hospital harm, acute kidney injury; and excessive radiation dose or inadequate image quality for diagnostic CT in adult inpatients.

11. HCAHPS survey: Beginning Jan. 1, 2025, modifications to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey will extend the data collection period from 42 to 49 days, limit supplemental survey items to 12, and require an official Spanish translation for patients.

12. Safety-net hospitals request for information: CMS seeks public input about the unique challenges faced by safety-net hospitals and potential solutions to ensure that uninsured, underinsured, and other vulnerable populations have access to essential services.

13. LTCH quality reporting: CMS proposes several quality-measure updates, including a functional discharge score measure beginning in FY 2025 and reporting the percentage of patients current with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recommended COVID vaccinations starting in FY 2026.

14. Commenting period: CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through June 9.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its annual update to the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) and long-term care hospital (LTCH) PPS on April 10, with many changes centered around improving health equity and quality as well as alleviating rural clinician shortages.

“This proposed rule reflects our person-centric approach to better measure health care quality and safety in hospitals to reduce preventable harm and our commitment to ensure that people with Medicare in rural and underserved areas have improved access to high-quality health care,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement.

Here are 14 things to know about the fiscal year (FY) 2024 proposal:

1. New payment rate: Acute-care hospitals that report inpatient quality data and participate in the EHR Meaningful Use program will receive a 2.8% net increase in payment rates. The rate adjustment will send approximately $3.3 billion more funding to hospitals compared with 2023.

2. LTCH payments: CMS projects that the LTCH standard payment rate will increase by 2.9%, whereas discharge payments will decrease by 2.5% or $59 million.

3. Disproportionate share hospital payments: Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments and Medicare uncompensated care payments will decrease by about $115 million for FY 2024.

4. Health equity categories: CMS proposes adding 15 new health equity hospital categorizations for IPPS payments to advance the goals of its Framework for Health Equity initiative.   

5. Social determinants of health codes: To reflect increased resource utilization, the severity designation for the three International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes describing homelessness will change from noncomplication or comorbidity to complication or comorbidity.

6. Rural emergency hospitals: The proposed rule will allow designated rural emergency hospitals to serve as training sites and receive Medicare graduate medical education payments to address concerns over rural hospital closures.

7. COVID treatment add-on payments: If the public health emergency ends in May, add-on payments for discharges involving eligible products like convalescent plasma and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir will expire on Sept. 30.

8. Technology add-on payments: Requests for new technology add-on payments must include a complete, active Food and Drug Administration market authorization application. Beginning with FY 2025 applications, the FDA approval deadline will move from July 1 to May 1.

9. Physician-owned hospitals: To receive Medicare payment for services referred by a physician owner or investor, the hospital must satisfy all requirements of the whole hospital exception or the rural provider exception to the Stark Law. In either case, a hospital may not increase the aggregate number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds above the level it was licensed for on March 23, 2010, unless CMS grants an exception.

10. Electronic clinical quality measures: The new rule will remove and modify several existing electronic clinical quality measures and add three new ones: hospital harm, pressure injury; hospital harm, acute kidney injury; and excessive radiation dose or inadequate image quality for diagnostic CT in adult inpatients.

11. HCAHPS survey: Beginning Jan. 1, 2025, modifications to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey will extend the data collection period from 42 to 49 days, limit supplemental survey items to 12, and require an official Spanish translation for patients.

12. Safety-net hospitals request for information: CMS seeks public input about the unique challenges faced by safety-net hospitals and potential solutions to ensure that uninsured, underinsured, and other vulnerable populations have access to essential services.

13. LTCH quality reporting: CMS proposes several quality-measure updates, including a functional discharge score measure beginning in FY 2025 and reporting the percentage of patients current with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recommended COVID vaccinations starting in FY 2026.

14. Commenting period: CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through June 9.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released its annual update to the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) and long-term care hospital (LTCH) PPS on April 10, with many changes centered around improving health equity and quality as well as alleviating rural clinician shortages.

“This proposed rule reflects our person-centric approach to better measure health care quality and safety in hospitals to reduce preventable harm and our commitment to ensure that people with Medicare in rural and underserved areas have improved access to high-quality health care,” said CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a statement.

Here are 14 things to know about the fiscal year (FY) 2024 proposal:

1. New payment rate: Acute-care hospitals that report inpatient quality data and participate in the EHR Meaningful Use program will receive a 2.8% net increase in payment rates. The rate adjustment will send approximately $3.3 billion more funding to hospitals compared with 2023.

2. LTCH payments: CMS projects that the LTCH standard payment rate will increase by 2.9%, whereas discharge payments will decrease by 2.5% or $59 million.

3. Disproportionate share hospital payments: Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments and Medicare uncompensated care payments will decrease by about $115 million for FY 2024.

4. Health equity categories: CMS proposes adding 15 new health equity hospital categorizations for IPPS payments to advance the goals of its Framework for Health Equity initiative.   

5. Social determinants of health codes: To reflect increased resource utilization, the severity designation for the three International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes describing homelessness will change from noncomplication or comorbidity to complication or comorbidity.

6. Rural emergency hospitals: The proposed rule will allow designated rural emergency hospitals to serve as training sites and receive Medicare graduate medical education payments to address concerns over rural hospital closures.

7. COVID treatment add-on payments: If the public health emergency ends in May, add-on payments for discharges involving eligible products like convalescent plasma and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir will expire on Sept. 30.

8. Technology add-on payments: Requests for new technology add-on payments must include a complete, active Food and Drug Administration market authorization application. Beginning with FY 2025 applications, the FDA approval deadline will move from July 1 to May 1.

9. Physician-owned hospitals: To receive Medicare payment for services referred by a physician owner or investor, the hospital must satisfy all requirements of the whole hospital exception or the rural provider exception to the Stark Law. In either case, a hospital may not increase the aggregate number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds above the level it was licensed for on March 23, 2010, unless CMS grants an exception.

10. Electronic clinical quality measures: The new rule will remove and modify several existing electronic clinical quality measures and add three new ones: hospital harm, pressure injury; hospital harm, acute kidney injury; and excessive radiation dose or inadequate image quality for diagnostic CT in adult inpatients.

11. HCAHPS survey: Beginning Jan. 1, 2025, modifications to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey will extend the data collection period from 42 to 49 days, limit supplemental survey items to 12, and require an official Spanish translation for patients.

12. Safety-net hospitals request for information: CMS seeks public input about the unique challenges faced by safety-net hospitals and potential solutions to ensure that uninsured, underinsured, and other vulnerable populations have access to essential services.

13. LTCH quality reporting: CMS proposes several quality-measure updates, including a functional discharge score measure beginning in FY 2025 and reporting the percentage of patients current with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–recommended COVID vaccinations starting in FY 2026.

14. Commenting period: CMS will accept comments on the proposed rule through June 9.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) model that used only a single histopathological slide predicted the risk of distant recurrence among endometrial cancer patients in a new study.

Endometrial cancer is the most frequently occurring uterine cancer. Early-stage patients have about a 95% 5-year survival, but distant recurrence is associated with very poor survival, according to Sarah Fremond, MSc, an author of the research (Abstract 5695), which she presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Most patients with endometrial cancer have a good prognosis and would not require any adjuvant treatment, but there is a proportion that will develop distant recurrence. For those you want to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy, because currently in the adjuvant setting, that’s the only treatment that is known to lower the risk of distant recurrence. But that also causes morbidity. Therefore, our clinical question was how to accurately identify patients at low and high risk of distant recurrence to reduce under- and overtreatment,” said Ms. Fremond, a PhD candidate at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Pathologists can attempt such predictions, but Ms. Fremond noted that there are challenges. “There is a lot of variability between pathologists, and we don’t even use the entire visual information present in the H&E [hematoxylin and eosin] tumor slide. When it comes to molecular testing, it is hampered by cost, turnaround time, and sometimes interpretation. It’s quite complex to combine those data to specifically target risk of distant recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer.”

In her presentation, Ms. Fremond described how she and her colleagues used digitized histopathological slides in their research. She and her coauthors developed the AI model as part of a collaboration that included the AIRMEC Consortium, Leiden University Medical Center, the TransPORTEC Consortium, and the University of Zürich.

The researchers used long-term follow-up data from 1,408 patients drawn from three clinical cohorts and participants in the PORTEC-1, PORTEC-2, and PORTEC-3 studies, which tested radiotherapy and adjuvant therapy outcomes in endometrial cancer. Patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. In the model development phase, the system analyzed a single representative histopathological slide image from each patient and compared it with the known time to distant recurrence to identify patterns.

Once the system had been trained, the researchers applied it to a novel group of 353 patients. It ranked 89 patients as having a low risk of recurrence, 175 at intermediate risk, and 89 at high risk of recurrence. The system performed well: 3.37% of low-risk patients experienced a distant recurrence, as did 15.43% of the intermediate-risk group and 36% of the high-risk group.

The researchers also employed an external validation group with 152 patients and three slides per patient, with a 2.8-year follow-up. The model performed with a C index of 0.805 (±0.0136) when a random slide was selected for each patient, and the median predicted risk score per patient was associated with differences in distant recurrence-free survival between the three risk groups with a C index of 0.816 (P < .0001).
 

Questions about research and their answers

Session moderator Kristin Swanson, PhD, asked if the AI could be used with the pathology slide’s visible features to learn more about the underlying biology and pathophysiology of tumors.

“Overlying the HECTOR on to the tissue seems like a logical opportunity to go and then explore the biology and what’s attributed as a high-risk region,” said Dr. Swanson, who is director of the Mathematical NeuroOncology Lab and codirector of the Precision NeuroTherapeutics Innovation Program at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

Ms. Fremond agreed that the AI has the potential to be used that way.”

During the Q&A, an audience member asked how likely the model is to perform in populations that differ significantly from the populations used in her study.

Ms. Fremond responded that the populations used to develop and test the models were in or close to the Netherlands, and little information was available regarding patient ethnicity. “There is a possibility that perhaps we would have a different performance on a population that includes more minorities. That needs to be checked,” said Ms. Fremond.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Ms. Fremond and Dr. Swanson have no relevant financial disclosures.

A deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) model that used only a single histopathological slide predicted the risk of distant recurrence among endometrial cancer patients in a new study.

Endometrial cancer is the most frequently occurring uterine cancer. Early-stage patients have about a 95% 5-year survival, but distant recurrence is associated with very poor survival, according to Sarah Fremond, MSc, an author of the research (Abstract 5695), which she presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Most patients with endometrial cancer have a good prognosis and would not require any adjuvant treatment, but there is a proportion that will develop distant recurrence. For those you want to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy, because currently in the adjuvant setting, that’s the only treatment that is known to lower the risk of distant recurrence. But that also causes morbidity. Therefore, our clinical question was how to accurately identify patients at low and high risk of distant recurrence to reduce under- and overtreatment,” said Ms. Fremond, a PhD candidate at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Pathologists can attempt such predictions, but Ms. Fremond noted that there are challenges. “There is a lot of variability between pathologists, and we don’t even use the entire visual information present in the H&E [hematoxylin and eosin] tumor slide. When it comes to molecular testing, it is hampered by cost, turnaround time, and sometimes interpretation. It’s quite complex to combine those data to specifically target risk of distant recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer.”

In her presentation, Ms. Fremond described how she and her colleagues used digitized histopathological slides in their research. She and her coauthors developed the AI model as part of a collaboration that included the AIRMEC Consortium, Leiden University Medical Center, the TransPORTEC Consortium, and the University of Zürich.

The researchers used long-term follow-up data from 1,408 patients drawn from three clinical cohorts and participants in the PORTEC-1, PORTEC-2, and PORTEC-3 studies, which tested radiotherapy and adjuvant therapy outcomes in endometrial cancer. Patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. In the model development phase, the system analyzed a single representative histopathological slide image from each patient and compared it with the known time to distant recurrence to identify patterns.

Once the system had been trained, the researchers applied it to a novel group of 353 patients. It ranked 89 patients as having a low risk of recurrence, 175 at intermediate risk, and 89 at high risk of recurrence. The system performed well: 3.37% of low-risk patients experienced a distant recurrence, as did 15.43% of the intermediate-risk group and 36% of the high-risk group.

The researchers also employed an external validation group with 152 patients and three slides per patient, with a 2.8-year follow-up. The model performed with a C index of 0.805 (±0.0136) when a random slide was selected for each patient, and the median predicted risk score per patient was associated with differences in distant recurrence-free survival between the three risk groups with a C index of 0.816 (P < .0001).
 

Questions about research and their answers

Session moderator Kristin Swanson, PhD, asked if the AI could be used with the pathology slide’s visible features to learn more about the underlying biology and pathophysiology of tumors.

“Overlying the HECTOR on to the tissue seems like a logical opportunity to go and then explore the biology and what’s attributed as a high-risk region,” said Dr. Swanson, who is director of the Mathematical NeuroOncology Lab and codirector of the Precision NeuroTherapeutics Innovation Program at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

Ms. Fremond agreed that the AI has the potential to be used that way.”

During the Q&A, an audience member asked how likely the model is to perform in populations that differ significantly from the populations used in her study.

Ms. Fremond responded that the populations used to develop and test the models were in or close to the Netherlands, and little information was available regarding patient ethnicity. “There is a possibility that perhaps we would have a different performance on a population that includes more minorities. That needs to be checked,” said Ms. Fremond.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Ms. Fremond and Dr. Swanson have no relevant financial disclosures.

A deep learning artificial intelligence (AI) model that used only a single histopathological slide predicted the risk of distant recurrence among endometrial cancer patients in a new study.

Endometrial cancer is the most frequently occurring uterine cancer. Early-stage patients have about a 95% 5-year survival, but distant recurrence is associated with very poor survival, according to Sarah Fremond, MSc, an author of the research (Abstract 5695), which she presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“Most patients with endometrial cancer have a good prognosis and would not require any adjuvant treatment, but there is a proportion that will develop distant recurrence. For those you want to recommend adjuvant chemotherapy, because currently in the adjuvant setting, that’s the only treatment that is known to lower the risk of distant recurrence. But that also causes morbidity. Therefore, our clinical question was how to accurately identify patients at low and high risk of distant recurrence to reduce under- and overtreatment,” said Ms. Fremond, a PhD candidate at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

Pathologists can attempt such predictions, but Ms. Fremond noted that there are challenges. “There is a lot of variability between pathologists, and we don’t even use the entire visual information present in the H&E [hematoxylin and eosin] tumor slide. When it comes to molecular testing, it is hampered by cost, turnaround time, and sometimes interpretation. It’s quite complex to combine those data to specifically target risk of distant recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer.”

In her presentation, Ms. Fremond described how she and her colleagues used digitized histopathological slides in their research. She and her coauthors developed the AI model as part of a collaboration that included the AIRMEC Consortium, Leiden University Medical Center, the TransPORTEC Consortium, and the University of Zürich.

The researchers used long-term follow-up data from 1,408 patients drawn from three clinical cohorts and participants in the PORTEC-1, PORTEC-2, and PORTEC-3 studies, which tested radiotherapy and adjuvant therapy outcomes in endometrial cancer. Patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. In the model development phase, the system analyzed a single representative histopathological slide image from each patient and compared it with the known time to distant recurrence to identify patterns.

Once the system had been trained, the researchers applied it to a novel group of 353 patients. It ranked 89 patients as having a low risk of recurrence, 175 at intermediate risk, and 89 at high risk of recurrence. The system performed well: 3.37% of low-risk patients experienced a distant recurrence, as did 15.43% of the intermediate-risk group and 36% of the high-risk group.

The researchers also employed an external validation group with 152 patients and three slides per patient, with a 2.8-year follow-up. The model performed with a C index of 0.805 (±0.0136) when a random slide was selected for each patient, and the median predicted risk score per patient was associated with differences in distant recurrence-free survival between the three risk groups with a C index of 0.816 (P < .0001).
 

Questions about research and their answers

Session moderator Kristin Swanson, PhD, asked if the AI could be used with the pathology slide’s visible features to learn more about the underlying biology and pathophysiology of tumors.

“Overlying the HECTOR on to the tissue seems like a logical opportunity to go and then explore the biology and what’s attributed as a high-risk region,” said Dr. Swanson, who is director of the Mathematical NeuroOncology Lab and codirector of the Precision NeuroTherapeutics Innovation Program at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix.

Ms. Fremond agreed that the AI has the potential to be used that way.”

During the Q&A, an audience member asked how likely the model is to perform in populations that differ significantly from the populations used in her study.

Ms. Fremond responded that the populations used to develop and test the models were in or close to the Netherlands, and little information was available regarding patient ethnicity. “There is a possibility that perhaps we would have a different performance on a population that includes more minorities. That needs to be checked,” said Ms. Fremond.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature.

Ms. Fremond and Dr. Swanson have no relevant financial disclosures.

The double whammy of pandemic burnout and the aging of baby boomer physicians has, indeed, the makings of some scary headlines. A recent survey by Elsevier Health predicts that up to 75% of health care workers will leave the profession by 2025. And a 2020 study conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) projected a shortfall of up to 139,000 physicians by 2033.

“We’ve paid a lot of attention to physician retirement,” says Michael Dill, AAMC’s director of workforce studies. “It’s a significant concern in terms of whether we have an adequate supply of physicians in the U.S. to meet our nation’s medical care needs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect.”

To Mr. Dill, it’s the number of older physicians – in all specialties – ready to retire that should be the biggest concern for hospitals all across the country.

“The physician workforce as a whole is aging,” he said. “Close to a quarter of the physicians in the U.S. are 65 and over. So, you don’t need any extraordinary events driving retirement in order for retirement to be a real phenomenon of which we should all be concerned.”

And, although Mr. Dill said there aren’t any data to suggest that doctors in rural or urban areas are retiring faster than in the suburbs, that doesn’t mean retirement will have the same impact depending on where patients live.

“If you live in a rural area with one small practice in town and that physician retires, there goes the entirety of the physician supply,” he said. “In a major metro area, that’s not as big a deal.”
 

Why younger doctors are fast-tracking retirement

Fernando Mendoza, MD, 54, a pediatric emergency department physician in Miami, worries that physicians are getting so bogged down by paperwork that this may lead to even more doctors, at younger ages, leaving the profession.

“I love taking care of kids, but there’s going to be a cost to doing your work when you’re spending as much time as we need to spend on charts, pharmacy requests, and making sure all of the Medicare and Medicaid compliance issues are worked out.”

These stressors may compel some younger doctors to consider carving out a second career or fast-track younger physicians toward retirement.

“A medical degree carries a lot of weight, which helps when pivoting,” said Dr. Mendoza, who launched Scrivas, a Miami-based medical scribe agency, to help reduce the paperwork workload for physicians. “It might be that a doctor wants to get involved in the acquisition of medical equipment, or maybe they can focus on their investments. Either way, by leaving medicine, they’re not dealing with the hassle and churn-and-burn of seeing patients.”
 

What this means for patients

The time is now to stem the upcoming tide of retirement, said Mr. Dill. But the challenges remain daunting. For starters, the country needs more physicians trained now – but it will take years to replace those baby boomer doctors ready to hang up their white coats.

The medical profession also needs to find ways to support physicians who spend their days juggling an endless array of responsibilities, he said.

The AAMC study found that patients already feel the physician shortfall. Their public opinion research in 2019 said 35% of patients had trouble finding a physician over the past 2 or 3 years, up 10 percentage points since they asked the question in 2015.

Moreover, according to the report, the over-65 population is expected to grow by 45.1%, leaving a specialty care gap because older people generally have more complicated health cases that require specialists. In addition, physician burnout may lead more physicians under 65 to retire much earlier than expected.

Changes in how medicine is practiced, telemedicine care, and medical education – such as disruption of classes or clinical rotations, regulatory changes, and a lack of interest in certain specialties – could also be affected by a mass physician retirement.
 

What can we do about mass retirement?

The AAMC reports in “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections From 2019 to 2034” that federally funded GME support is in the works to train 15,000 physicians per year, with 3,000 new residency slots added per year over 5 years. The proposed model will add 3,750 new physicians each year beginning in 2026.

Other efforts include increasing use of APRNs and PAs, whose population is estimated to more than double by 2034, improve population health through preventive care, increase equity in health outcomes, and improve access and affordable care.

Removing licensing barriers for immigrant doctors can also help alleviate the shortage.

“We need to find better ways to leverage the entirety of the health care team so that not as much falls on physicians,” Mr. Dill said. “It’s also imperative that we focus on ways to support physician wellness and allow physicians to remain active in the field, but at a reduced rate.”

That’s precisely what Marie Brown, MD, director of practice redesign at the American Medical Association, is seeing nationwide. Cutting back their hours is not only trending, but it’s also helping doctors cope with burnout.

“We’re seeing physicians take a 20% or more cut in salary in order to decrease their burden,” she said. “They’ll spend 4 days on clinical time with patients so that on that fifth ‘day off,’ they’re doing the paperwork and documentation they need to do so they don’t compromise care on the other 4 days of the week.”

And this may only be a Band-Aid solution, she fears.

“If a physician is spending 3 hours a day doing unnecessary work that could be done by another team member, that’s contributing to burnout,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s no surprise that they’ll want to escape and retire if they’re in a financial situation to do so.”

“I advocate negotiating within your organization so you’re doing more of what you like, such as mentoring or running a residency, and less of what you don’t, while cutting back from full-time to something less than full-time while maintaining benefits,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, a certified financial planner in Minneapolis, who specializes in helping physicians manage their financial affairs.

“Falling into the ‘like less’ bucket are usually things like working weekends and taking calls,” he said.

“This benefits everyone on a large scale because those doctors who find things they enjoy are generally working to a later age but working less hard,” he said. “Remaining comfortably and happily gainfully employed for a longer period, even if you’re not working full-time, has a very powerful effect on your financial planning, and you’ll avoid the risk of running out of money.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The double whammy of pandemic burnout and the aging of baby boomer physicians has, indeed, the makings of some scary headlines. A recent survey by Elsevier Health predicts that up to 75% of health care workers will leave the profession by 2025. And a 2020 study conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) projected a shortfall of up to 139,000 physicians by 2033.

“We’ve paid a lot of attention to physician retirement,” says Michael Dill, AAMC’s director of workforce studies. “It’s a significant concern in terms of whether we have an adequate supply of physicians in the U.S. to meet our nation’s medical care needs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect.”

To Mr. Dill, it’s the number of older physicians – in all specialties – ready to retire that should be the biggest concern for hospitals all across the country.

“The physician workforce as a whole is aging,” he said. “Close to a quarter of the physicians in the U.S. are 65 and over. So, you don’t need any extraordinary events driving retirement in order for retirement to be a real phenomenon of which we should all be concerned.”

And, although Mr. Dill said there aren’t any data to suggest that doctors in rural or urban areas are retiring faster than in the suburbs, that doesn’t mean retirement will have the same impact depending on where patients live.

“If you live in a rural area with one small practice in town and that physician retires, there goes the entirety of the physician supply,” he said. “In a major metro area, that’s not as big a deal.”
 

Why younger doctors are fast-tracking retirement

Fernando Mendoza, MD, 54, a pediatric emergency department physician in Miami, worries that physicians are getting so bogged down by paperwork that this may lead to even more doctors, at younger ages, leaving the profession.

“I love taking care of kids, but there’s going to be a cost to doing your work when you’re spending as much time as we need to spend on charts, pharmacy requests, and making sure all of the Medicare and Medicaid compliance issues are worked out.”

These stressors may compel some younger doctors to consider carving out a second career or fast-track younger physicians toward retirement.

“A medical degree carries a lot of weight, which helps when pivoting,” said Dr. Mendoza, who launched Scrivas, a Miami-based medical scribe agency, to help reduce the paperwork workload for physicians. “It might be that a doctor wants to get involved in the acquisition of medical equipment, or maybe they can focus on their investments. Either way, by leaving medicine, they’re not dealing with the hassle and churn-and-burn of seeing patients.”
 

What this means for patients

The time is now to stem the upcoming tide of retirement, said Mr. Dill. But the challenges remain daunting. For starters, the country needs more physicians trained now – but it will take years to replace those baby boomer doctors ready to hang up their white coats.

The medical profession also needs to find ways to support physicians who spend their days juggling an endless array of responsibilities, he said.

The AAMC study found that patients already feel the physician shortfall. Their public opinion research in 2019 said 35% of patients had trouble finding a physician over the past 2 or 3 years, up 10 percentage points since they asked the question in 2015.

Moreover, according to the report, the over-65 population is expected to grow by 45.1%, leaving a specialty care gap because older people generally have more complicated health cases that require specialists. In addition, physician burnout may lead more physicians under 65 to retire much earlier than expected.

Changes in how medicine is practiced, telemedicine care, and medical education – such as disruption of classes or clinical rotations, regulatory changes, and a lack of interest in certain specialties – could also be affected by a mass physician retirement.
 

What can we do about mass retirement?

The AAMC reports in “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections From 2019 to 2034” that federally funded GME support is in the works to train 15,000 physicians per year, with 3,000 new residency slots added per year over 5 years. The proposed model will add 3,750 new physicians each year beginning in 2026.

Other efforts include increasing use of APRNs and PAs, whose population is estimated to more than double by 2034, improve population health through preventive care, increase equity in health outcomes, and improve access and affordable care.

Removing licensing barriers for immigrant doctors can also help alleviate the shortage.

“We need to find better ways to leverage the entirety of the health care team so that not as much falls on physicians,” Mr. Dill said. “It’s also imperative that we focus on ways to support physician wellness and allow physicians to remain active in the field, but at a reduced rate.”

That’s precisely what Marie Brown, MD, director of practice redesign at the American Medical Association, is seeing nationwide. Cutting back their hours is not only trending, but it’s also helping doctors cope with burnout.

“We’re seeing physicians take a 20% or more cut in salary in order to decrease their burden,” she said. “They’ll spend 4 days on clinical time with patients so that on that fifth ‘day off,’ they’re doing the paperwork and documentation they need to do so they don’t compromise care on the other 4 days of the week.”

And this may only be a Band-Aid solution, she fears.

“If a physician is spending 3 hours a day doing unnecessary work that could be done by another team member, that’s contributing to burnout,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s no surprise that they’ll want to escape and retire if they’re in a financial situation to do so.”

“I advocate negotiating within your organization so you’re doing more of what you like, such as mentoring or running a residency, and less of what you don’t, while cutting back from full-time to something less than full-time while maintaining benefits,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, a certified financial planner in Minneapolis, who specializes in helping physicians manage their financial affairs.

“Falling into the ‘like less’ bucket are usually things like working weekends and taking calls,” he said.

“This benefits everyone on a large scale because those doctors who find things they enjoy are generally working to a later age but working less hard,” he said. “Remaining comfortably and happily gainfully employed for a longer period, even if you’re not working full-time, has a very powerful effect on your financial planning, and you’ll avoid the risk of running out of money.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The double whammy of pandemic burnout and the aging of baby boomer physicians has, indeed, the makings of some scary headlines. A recent survey by Elsevier Health predicts that up to 75% of health care workers will leave the profession by 2025. And a 2020 study conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) projected a shortfall of up to 139,000 physicians by 2033.

“We’ve paid a lot of attention to physician retirement,” says Michael Dill, AAMC’s director of workforce studies. “It’s a significant concern in terms of whether we have an adequate supply of physicians in the U.S. to meet our nation’s medical care needs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is incorrect.”

To Mr. Dill, it’s the number of older physicians – in all specialties – ready to retire that should be the biggest concern for hospitals all across the country.

“The physician workforce as a whole is aging,” he said. “Close to a quarter of the physicians in the U.S. are 65 and over. So, you don’t need any extraordinary events driving retirement in order for retirement to be a real phenomenon of which we should all be concerned.”

And, although Mr. Dill said there aren’t any data to suggest that doctors in rural or urban areas are retiring faster than in the suburbs, that doesn’t mean retirement will have the same impact depending on where patients live.

“If you live in a rural area with one small practice in town and that physician retires, there goes the entirety of the physician supply,” he said. “In a major metro area, that’s not as big a deal.”
 

Why younger doctors are fast-tracking retirement

Fernando Mendoza, MD, 54, a pediatric emergency department physician in Miami, worries that physicians are getting so bogged down by paperwork that this may lead to even more doctors, at younger ages, leaving the profession.

“I love taking care of kids, but there’s going to be a cost to doing your work when you’re spending as much time as we need to spend on charts, pharmacy requests, and making sure all of the Medicare and Medicaid compliance issues are worked out.”

These stressors may compel some younger doctors to consider carving out a second career or fast-track younger physicians toward retirement.

“A medical degree carries a lot of weight, which helps when pivoting,” said Dr. Mendoza, who launched Scrivas, a Miami-based medical scribe agency, to help reduce the paperwork workload for physicians. “It might be that a doctor wants to get involved in the acquisition of medical equipment, or maybe they can focus on their investments. Either way, by leaving medicine, they’re not dealing with the hassle and churn-and-burn of seeing patients.”
 

What this means for patients

The time is now to stem the upcoming tide of retirement, said Mr. Dill. But the challenges remain daunting. For starters, the country needs more physicians trained now – but it will take years to replace those baby boomer doctors ready to hang up their white coats.

The medical profession also needs to find ways to support physicians who spend their days juggling an endless array of responsibilities, he said.

The AAMC study found that patients already feel the physician shortfall. Their public opinion research in 2019 said 35% of patients had trouble finding a physician over the past 2 or 3 years, up 10 percentage points since they asked the question in 2015.

Moreover, according to the report, the over-65 population is expected to grow by 45.1%, leaving a specialty care gap because older people generally have more complicated health cases that require specialists. In addition, physician burnout may lead more physicians under 65 to retire much earlier than expected.

Changes in how medicine is practiced, telemedicine care, and medical education – such as disruption of classes or clinical rotations, regulatory changes, and a lack of interest in certain specialties – could also be affected by a mass physician retirement.
 

What can we do about mass retirement?

The AAMC reports in “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections From 2019 to 2034” that federally funded GME support is in the works to train 15,000 physicians per year, with 3,000 new residency slots added per year over 5 years. The proposed model will add 3,750 new physicians each year beginning in 2026.

Other efforts include increasing use of APRNs and PAs, whose population is estimated to more than double by 2034, improve population health through preventive care, increase equity in health outcomes, and improve access and affordable care.

Removing licensing barriers for immigrant doctors can also help alleviate the shortage.

“We need to find better ways to leverage the entirety of the health care team so that not as much falls on physicians,” Mr. Dill said. “It’s also imperative that we focus on ways to support physician wellness and allow physicians to remain active in the field, but at a reduced rate.”

That’s precisely what Marie Brown, MD, director of practice redesign at the American Medical Association, is seeing nationwide. Cutting back their hours is not only trending, but it’s also helping doctors cope with burnout.

“We’re seeing physicians take a 20% or more cut in salary in order to decrease their burden,” she said. “They’ll spend 4 days on clinical time with patients so that on that fifth ‘day off,’ they’re doing the paperwork and documentation they need to do so they don’t compromise care on the other 4 days of the week.”

And this may only be a Band-Aid solution, she fears.

“If a physician is spending 3 hours a day doing unnecessary work that could be done by another team member, that’s contributing to burnout,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s no surprise that they’ll want to escape and retire if they’re in a financial situation to do so.”

“I advocate negotiating within your organization so you’re doing more of what you like, such as mentoring or running a residency, and less of what you don’t, while cutting back from full-time to something less than full-time while maintaining benefits,” said Joel Greenwald, MD, a certified financial planner in Minneapolis, who specializes in helping physicians manage their financial affairs.

“Falling into the ‘like less’ bucket are usually things like working weekends and taking calls,” he said.

“This benefits everyone on a large scale because those doctors who find things they enjoy are generally working to a later age but working less hard,” he said. “Remaining comfortably and happily gainfully employed for a longer period, even if you’re not working full-time, has a very powerful effect on your financial planning, and you’ll avoid the risk of running out of money.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician compensation continued to rise in 2022 after suffering a dip in 2020, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023: Your Income Versus Your Peers’. In addition, gender-based pay disparity among primary care physicians shrank, and the number of physicians who declined to take new Medicare patients rose.
 

The annual report is based on a survey of more than 10,000 physicians in over 29 specialties who answered questions about their income, workload, challenges, and level of satisfaction.

Average compensation across specialties rose to $352,000 – up nearly 17% from the 2018 average of $299,000. Fallout from the COVID-19 public health emergency continued to affect both physician compensation and job satisfaction, including Medicare reimbursements and staffing shortages due to burnout or retirement.

“Many physicians reevaluated what drove them to be a physician,” says Marc Adam, a recruiter at MASC Medical, a Florida physician recruiting firm.

Adam cites telehealth as an example. “An overwhelming majority of physicians prefer telehealth because of the convenience, but some really did not want to do it long term. They miss the patient interaction.”

The report also revealed that the gender-based pay gap in primary physicians fell, with men earning 19% more – down from 25% more in recent years. Among specialists, the gender gap was 27% on average, down from 31% last year. One reason may be an increase in compensation transparency, which Mr. Adam says should be the norm.

Income increases will likely continue, owing in large part to the growing disparity between physician supply and demand.

The projected physician shortage is expected to grow to 124,000 by 2034, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges. Federal lawmakers are considering passing the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023, which would add 14,000 Medicare-funded residency positions to help alleviate shortages.
 

Patient needs, Medicare rules continue to shift

Specialties with the biggest increases in compensation include oncology, anesthesiology, gastroenterology, radiology, critical care, and urology. Many procedure-related specialties saw more volume post pandemic.

Some respondents identified Medicare cuts and low reimbursement rates as a factor in tamping down compensation hikes. The number of physicians who expect to continue to take new Medicare patients is 65%, down from 71% 5 years ago.

For example, Medicare reimbursements for telehealth are expected to scale down in May, when the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, which expanded telehealth services for Medicare patients, winds down.

“Telehealth will still exist,” says Mr. Adam, “but certain requirements will shape it going forward.”

Medicare isn’t viewed negatively across the board, however. Florida is among the top-earning states for physicians – along with Indiana, Connecticut, and Missouri. One reason is Florida’s unique health care environment, explains Mr. Adam, whose Florida-based firm places physicians nationwide.

“Florida is very progressive in terms of health care. For one thing, we have a large aging population and a large Medicare population.” Several growing organizations that focus on quality-based care are based in Florida, including ChenMed and Cano Health. Add to that the fact that owners of Florida’s health care organizations don’t have to be physicians, he explains, and the stage is set for experimentation.

“Being able to segment tasks frees up physicians to be more focused on medicine and provide better care while other people focus on the business and innovation.”

If Florida’s high compensation ranking continues, it may help employers there fulfill a growing need. The state is among those expected to experience the largest physician shortages in 2030, along with California, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.
 

Side gigs up, satisfaction (slightly) down

In general, physicians aren’t fazed by these challenges. Many reported taking side gigs, some for additional income. Even so, 73% say they would still choose medicine, and more than 90% of physicians in 10 specialties would choose their specialty again. Still, burnout and stressors have led some to stop practicing altogether.

More and more organizations are hiring “travel physicians,” Mr. Adam says, and more physicians are choosing to take contract work (“locum tenens”) and practice in many different regions. Contract physicians typically help meet patient demand or provide coverage during the hiring process as well as while staff are on vacation or maternity leave.

Says Mr. Adam, “There’s no security, but there’s higher income and more flexibility.”

According to CHG Healthcare, locum tenens staffing is rising – approximately 7% of U.S. physicians (around 50,000) filled assignments in 2022, up 88% from 2015. In 2022, 56% of locum tenens employers reported a reduction in staff burnout, up from 30% in 2020.

The report indicates that more than half of physicians are satisfied with their income, down slightly from 55% 5 years ago (prepandemic). Physicians in some of the lower-paying specialties are among those most satisfied with their income. It’s not very surprising to Mr. Adam: “Higher earners generally suffer the most from burnout.

“They’re overworked, they have the largest number of patients, and they’re performing in high-stress situations doing challenging procedures on a daily basis – and they probably have worse work-life balance.” These physicians know going in that they need to be paid more to deal with such burdens. “That’s the feedback I get when I speak to high earners,” says Mr. Adam.

“The experienced ones are very clear about their [compensation] expectations.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician compensation continued to rise in 2022 after suffering a dip in 2020, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023: Your Income Versus Your Peers’. In addition, gender-based pay disparity among primary care physicians shrank, and the number of physicians who declined to take new Medicare patients rose.
 

The annual report is based on a survey of more than 10,000 physicians in over 29 specialties who answered questions about their income, workload, challenges, and level of satisfaction.

Average compensation across specialties rose to $352,000 – up nearly 17% from the 2018 average of $299,000. Fallout from the COVID-19 public health emergency continued to affect both physician compensation and job satisfaction, including Medicare reimbursements and staffing shortages due to burnout or retirement.

“Many physicians reevaluated what drove them to be a physician,” says Marc Adam, a recruiter at MASC Medical, a Florida physician recruiting firm.

Adam cites telehealth as an example. “An overwhelming majority of physicians prefer telehealth because of the convenience, but some really did not want to do it long term. They miss the patient interaction.”

The report also revealed that the gender-based pay gap in primary physicians fell, with men earning 19% more – down from 25% more in recent years. Among specialists, the gender gap was 27% on average, down from 31% last year. One reason may be an increase in compensation transparency, which Mr. Adam says should be the norm.

Income increases will likely continue, owing in large part to the growing disparity between physician supply and demand.

The projected physician shortage is expected to grow to 124,000 by 2034, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges. Federal lawmakers are considering passing the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023, which would add 14,000 Medicare-funded residency positions to help alleviate shortages.
 

Patient needs, Medicare rules continue to shift

Specialties with the biggest increases in compensation include oncology, anesthesiology, gastroenterology, radiology, critical care, and urology. Many procedure-related specialties saw more volume post pandemic.

Some respondents identified Medicare cuts and low reimbursement rates as a factor in tamping down compensation hikes. The number of physicians who expect to continue to take new Medicare patients is 65%, down from 71% 5 years ago.

For example, Medicare reimbursements for telehealth are expected to scale down in May, when the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, which expanded telehealth services for Medicare patients, winds down.

“Telehealth will still exist,” says Mr. Adam, “but certain requirements will shape it going forward.”

Medicare isn’t viewed negatively across the board, however. Florida is among the top-earning states for physicians – along with Indiana, Connecticut, and Missouri. One reason is Florida’s unique health care environment, explains Mr. Adam, whose Florida-based firm places physicians nationwide.

“Florida is very progressive in terms of health care. For one thing, we have a large aging population and a large Medicare population.” Several growing organizations that focus on quality-based care are based in Florida, including ChenMed and Cano Health. Add to that the fact that owners of Florida’s health care organizations don’t have to be physicians, he explains, and the stage is set for experimentation.

“Being able to segment tasks frees up physicians to be more focused on medicine and provide better care while other people focus on the business and innovation.”

If Florida’s high compensation ranking continues, it may help employers there fulfill a growing need. The state is among those expected to experience the largest physician shortages in 2030, along with California, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.
 

Side gigs up, satisfaction (slightly) down

In general, physicians aren’t fazed by these challenges. Many reported taking side gigs, some for additional income. Even so, 73% say they would still choose medicine, and more than 90% of physicians in 10 specialties would choose their specialty again. Still, burnout and stressors have led some to stop practicing altogether.

More and more organizations are hiring “travel physicians,” Mr. Adam says, and more physicians are choosing to take contract work (“locum tenens”) and practice in many different regions. Contract physicians typically help meet patient demand or provide coverage during the hiring process as well as while staff are on vacation or maternity leave.

Says Mr. Adam, “There’s no security, but there’s higher income and more flexibility.”

According to CHG Healthcare, locum tenens staffing is rising – approximately 7% of U.S. physicians (around 50,000) filled assignments in 2022, up 88% from 2015. In 2022, 56% of locum tenens employers reported a reduction in staff burnout, up from 30% in 2020.

The report indicates that more than half of physicians are satisfied with their income, down slightly from 55% 5 years ago (prepandemic). Physicians in some of the lower-paying specialties are among those most satisfied with their income. It’s not very surprising to Mr. Adam: “Higher earners generally suffer the most from burnout.

“They’re overworked, they have the largest number of patients, and they’re performing in high-stress situations doing challenging procedures on a daily basis – and they probably have worse work-life balance.” These physicians know going in that they need to be paid more to deal with such burdens. “That’s the feedback I get when I speak to high earners,” says Mr. Adam.

“The experienced ones are very clear about their [compensation] expectations.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician compensation continued to rise in 2022 after suffering a dip in 2020, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2023: Your Income Versus Your Peers’. In addition, gender-based pay disparity among primary care physicians shrank, and the number of physicians who declined to take new Medicare patients rose.
 

The annual report is based on a survey of more than 10,000 physicians in over 29 specialties who answered questions about their income, workload, challenges, and level of satisfaction.

Average compensation across specialties rose to $352,000 – up nearly 17% from the 2018 average of $299,000. Fallout from the COVID-19 public health emergency continued to affect both physician compensation and job satisfaction, including Medicare reimbursements and staffing shortages due to burnout or retirement.

“Many physicians reevaluated what drove them to be a physician,” says Marc Adam, a recruiter at MASC Medical, a Florida physician recruiting firm.

Adam cites telehealth as an example. “An overwhelming majority of physicians prefer telehealth because of the convenience, but some really did not want to do it long term. They miss the patient interaction.”

The report also revealed that the gender-based pay gap in primary physicians fell, with men earning 19% more – down from 25% more in recent years. Among specialists, the gender gap was 27% on average, down from 31% last year. One reason may be an increase in compensation transparency, which Mr. Adam says should be the norm.

Income increases will likely continue, owing in large part to the growing disparity between physician supply and demand.

The projected physician shortage is expected to grow to 124,000 by 2034, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges. Federal lawmakers are considering passing the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023, which would add 14,000 Medicare-funded residency positions to help alleviate shortages.
 

Patient needs, Medicare rules continue to shift

Specialties with the biggest increases in compensation include oncology, anesthesiology, gastroenterology, radiology, critical care, and urology. Many procedure-related specialties saw more volume post pandemic.

Some respondents identified Medicare cuts and low reimbursement rates as a factor in tamping down compensation hikes. The number of physicians who expect to continue to take new Medicare patients is 65%, down from 71% 5 years ago.

For example, Medicare reimbursements for telehealth are expected to scale down in May, when the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, which expanded telehealth services for Medicare patients, winds down.

“Telehealth will still exist,” says Mr. Adam, “but certain requirements will shape it going forward.”

Medicare isn’t viewed negatively across the board, however. Florida is among the top-earning states for physicians – along with Indiana, Connecticut, and Missouri. One reason is Florida’s unique health care environment, explains Mr. Adam, whose Florida-based firm places physicians nationwide.

“Florida is very progressive in terms of health care. For one thing, we have a large aging population and a large Medicare population.” Several growing organizations that focus on quality-based care are based in Florida, including ChenMed and Cano Health. Add to that the fact that owners of Florida’s health care organizations don’t have to be physicians, he explains, and the stage is set for experimentation.

“Being able to segment tasks frees up physicians to be more focused on medicine and provide better care while other people focus on the business and innovation.”

If Florida’s high compensation ranking continues, it may help employers there fulfill a growing need. The state is among those expected to experience the largest physician shortages in 2030, along with California, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.
 

Side gigs up, satisfaction (slightly) down

In general, physicians aren’t fazed by these challenges. Many reported taking side gigs, some for additional income. Even so, 73% say they would still choose medicine, and more than 90% of physicians in 10 specialties would choose their specialty again. Still, burnout and stressors have led some to stop practicing altogether.

More and more organizations are hiring “travel physicians,” Mr. Adam says, and more physicians are choosing to take contract work (“locum tenens”) and practice in many different regions. Contract physicians typically help meet patient demand or provide coverage during the hiring process as well as while staff are on vacation or maternity leave.

Says Mr. Adam, “There’s no security, but there’s higher income and more flexibility.”

According to CHG Healthcare, locum tenens staffing is rising – approximately 7% of U.S. physicians (around 50,000) filled assignments in 2022, up 88% from 2015. In 2022, 56% of locum tenens employers reported a reduction in staff burnout, up from 30% in 2020.

The report indicates that more than half of physicians are satisfied with their income, down slightly from 55% 5 years ago (prepandemic). Physicians in some of the lower-paying specialties are among those most satisfied with their income. It’s not very surprising to Mr. Adam: “Higher earners generally suffer the most from burnout.

“They’re overworked, they have the largest number of patients, and they’re performing in high-stress situations doing challenging procedures on a daily basis – and they probably have worse work-life balance.” These physicians know going in that they need to be paid more to deal with such burdens. “That’s the feedback I get when I speak to high earners,” says Mr. Adam.

“The experienced ones are very clear about their [compensation] expectations.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.