CPT codes – The Health Care Blog

You Can’t Spell Fair Pay Without AI

Dec 5, 2024

By KIM BELLARD

Everything’s about AI these days. Everything is going to be about AI for a while. Everyone’s talking about it, and most of them know more about it than I do. But there is one thing about AI that I don’t think is getting enough attention. I’m old enough that the mantra “follow the money” resonates, and, when it comes to AI, I don’t like where I think the money is ending up.

I’ll talk about this both at a macro level and also specifically for healthcare.

On the macro side, one trend that I have become increasingly radicalized about over the past few year is income/wealth inequality. I wrote a couple weeks ago about how the economy is not working for many workers: executive to worker compensation ratios have skyrocketed over the past few decades, resulting in wage stagnation for many workers; income and wealthy inequality are at levels that make the Gilded Age look positively progressive; intergenerational mobility in the United States is moribund.

That’s not the American Dream many of us grew up believing in.

We’ve got a winner-take-all economy, and it’s leaving behind more and more people. If you are a tech CEO, a hedge fund manager, or a highly skilled knowledge worker, things are looking pretty good. If you don’t have a college degree, or even if you have a college degree but with the wrong major or have the wrong skills, not so much.

All that was happening before AI, and the question for us is whether AI will exacerbate those trends, or ameliorate them. If you are in doubt about the answer to that question, follow the money. Who is funding AI research, and what might they be expecting in return?

It seems like every day I read about how AI is impacting white collar jobs. It can help traders! It can help lawyers! It can help coders! It can help doctors! For many white collar workers, AI may be a valuable tool that will enhance their productivity and make their jobs easier – in the short term. In the long term, of course, AI may simply come for their jobs, as it is starting to do for blue collar workers.

Automation has already cost more blue collar jobs than outsourcing, and that was before anything we’d now consider AI. With AI, that trend is going to happen on steroids; jobs will disappear in droves. That’s great if you are an executive looking to cut costs, but terrible if you are one of those costs.

US Cardiac electrophysiologists meet reimbursement reality and don’t like it.

Aug 1, 2022• 2

By ANISH KOKA

It’s been a while but Anish Koka, a one time regular writer on THCB and occasional THCB Gang member, is back publishing up a storm on his Substack channel. You may recall that his political and clinical views don’t always mesh with some of the wooly liberals we feature on THCB (cough, cough, me), but we are delighted to be back publishing some of his pieces–this one is on reimbursement.–Matthew Holt

The subspecialty of Cardiology known as electrophysiology has seen explosive growth over the last few decades in large part because of a massive expansion in the suite of procedures now offered to patients. It used to be that electrophysiologists would spend the majority of their careers implanting pacemakers and defibrillators, but the last 2 decades saw an explosion in electrophysiology procedures known as ablations. Ablations essentially involve burning cardiac tissue in a strategic manner to get rid of arrhythmias that may be afflicting a particular patient. The path humans took from first taking an electrical picture of the heart with a surface ECG to putting catheters into the heart to map and treat dangerous arrhythmias is one of the great achievements of the modern era.

Giants of the field like the recently deceased Mark Josephson essentially created a field by going where no humans had gone before. Dr. Josephson did much of his work in Philadelphia at the University of Pennsylvania publishing seminal papers that lead to a greater understanding and eventual treatment of previously incurable malignant arrhythmias. As is true of all trailblazing work in medicine , there were no reimbursement codes in the beginning , just desperate patients with no place to turn.

The procedures being embarked on were rare and the patients were very complex. The renumeration that was awarded from Medicare was reflective of this. But two things almost always happen once a highly reimbursed procedure code comes on line – technological advances makes the procedure easier, and the population that the procedure is intended for massively balloons.

The Math of E/M Coding: When Does 5=1?

Sep 23, 2011• 6

By PAUL FISCHER, MD

My typical Medicare patient expects me to deal with 5 or more problems in a single routine visit. There are usually around 3 old ones (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia) and at least 2 new ones (e.g., low back pain, fatigue). For those who come with handwritten lists, there may be as many as 10, including every health question that has come to mind over the past 6 months (Should I take a holiday off of Fosamax? Should I add fish oil? Do I need another colonoscopy? Is the shingles shot any good?).

Physicians who do procedures get paid for each one done to a single patient on a particular day. Medicare’s rule for this – the Multiple Procedure Payment Reduction Rule (MPPR) – says doctors should be paid 100% for the first procedure and 50% for each subsequent procedure up to 5. However, for those of us whose work is primarily cognitive rather than procedural, there is an important exclusion: the multiple-payment rule does not apply to E/M codes. In fact, the definitions of 99213 and 99214 unambiguously state, “Usually the presenting problem(s) are of . . . complexity.” Note the “(s)”! It clearly creates a double standard that favors doing procedures and places thoughtful solving of patients’ problems at a disadvantage.

So in my case, 5 or 10 or more separate patient problems equal one payment. The “(s)” in the AMA’s CPT book is the most outrageous injustice to primary care of this generation. Because of it, the AMA’s CPT committee is accountable for even more damage to primary care than is their RUC! Think how different life in primary care would be if the “(s)” were removed and you were paid 50% for each additional patient problem you addressed in a single office visit!