1990PubMedRequires access

Variations in coding practices among Connecticut urologists for the Medicare population.

Peter C. Albertsen, Edward A. Kamens

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

As health care costs continue to rise, alternatives to the traditional fee for service system of physician reimbursement are being explored. Recently a resource-based relative-value system was enacted by Congress to correct some of the perceived inequities of Medicare reimbursement. Since reimbursement for evaluation and management services, also known as cognitive services, are based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT-4) codes, we reviewed Medicare claims data for fiscal year 1986-87 to identify the coding habits of Connecticut urologists. We found that Connecticut urologist file 99% of their claims for cognitive services in one of six categories. Furthermore, we found that within these broad categories an average of 82% of the claims were filed under one primary practice specific code. The particular code selected, however, varied markedly between practices. Our data suggest that Connecticut urologists have adopted different standards for using CPT-4 codes and have adjusted for these differences through their fee schedules. These findings highlight the need for increased precision in CPT code definitions for cognitive services before they can be adapted to a reimbursement system based upon relative-value scales.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

As health care costs continue to rise, alternatives to the traditional fee for service system of physician reimbursement are being explored. Recently a resource-based relative-value system was enacted by Congress to correct some of the perceived inequities of Medicare reimbursement. Since reimbursement for evaluation and management services, also known as cognitive services, are based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT-4) codes, we reviewed Medicare claims data for fiscal year 1986-87 to identify the coding habits of Connecticut urologists. We found that Connecticut urologist file 99% of their claims for cognitive services in one of six categories. Furthermore, we found that within these broad categories an average of 82% of the claims were filed under one primary practice specific code. The particular code selected, however, varied markedly between practices. Our data suggest that Connecticut urologists have adopted different standards for using CPT-4 codes and have adjusted for these differences through their fee schedules. These findings highlight the need for increased precision in CPT code definitions for cognitive services before they can be adapted to a reimbursement system based upon relative-value scales.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

As health care costs continue to rise, alternatives to the traditional fee for service system of physician reimbursement are being explored. Recently a resource-based relative-value system was enacted by Congress to correct some of the perceived inequities of Medicare reimbursement. Since reimbursement for evaluation and management services, also known as cognitive services, are based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT-4) codes, we reviewed Medicare claims data for fiscal year 1986-87 to identify the coding habits of Connecticut urologists. We found that Connecticut urologist file 99% of their claims for cognitive services in one of six categories. Furthermore, we found that within these broad categories an average of 82% of the claims were filed under one primary practice specific code. The particular code selected, however, varied markedly between practices. Our data suggest that Connecticut urologists have adopted different standards for using CPT-4 codes and have adjusted for these differences through their fee schedules. These findings highlight the need for increased precision in CPT code definitions for cognitive services before they can be adapted to a reimbursement system based upon relative-value scales.

Key concepts: Current Procedural Terminology, Reimbursement, Resource-based relative value scale, Medicare Part B, Coding (social sciences), Actuarial science, Terminology, Diagnosis code

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Variations in coding practices among Connecticut urologists for the Medicare population. — Research Paper | ScholarLens