2006 proposed fee schedule - American Society of Clinical Oncology
2006 proposed fee schedule - American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 proposed fee schedule - American Society of Clinical Oncology
Therefore, we propose assigning these specialties a risk 100 factor of 1.00. We invite comment from representatives of the affected specialties and others regarding the appropriateness of this proposal, as well as other specialty crosswalks and suggestions for reliable sources of actual malpractice premium data for nonphysician groups. The RUC PLI Workgroup also felt that a number of professions that were assigned to the average for all physicians risk factor should be removed from the calculation of malpractice RVUs altogether. The PLI Workgroup believes that it would be more appropriate to exclude data from the following professions: certified clinical nurse specialist (CNS), clinical laboratory, multispecialty clinic or group practice, NP, physician assistant (PA), and physiological laboratory (independent). In calculating the malpractice RVUs applicable for 2005, 34 Medicare specialties were excluded from the calculation because they could not be otherwise assigned or crosswalked. The RUC recommends the above specialties and professions be similarly excluded. We agree and propose to establish malpractice RVUs based upon the mix of specialties exclusive of the above specialties and professions. The PLI Workgroup also made the following recommendations that we are not accepting: certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) should be crosswalked
to anesthesiology which is 2.84 rather than to the “all physicians” which is 3.04; colorectal surgeons should be 101 crosswalked to general surgery (the current risk factor is based on actual data); and gynecologists and oncologists (currently 5.63) should be crosswalked to surgical oncology (currently 6.13). We believe the current crosswalks we are using for these specialties appropriately reflect the types of services they provide. However, we would welcome comments on these proposals as well. 3. Cardiac Catheterization and Angioplasty Exception In response to a comment received on our proposed methodology at the time, in the November 2, 1999 final rule (64 FR 59384), we applied surgical risk factors to the following cardiology catheterization and angioplasty codes: 92980 to 92998 and 93501 to 93536. This exception was established because these procedures are quite invasive and more akin to surgical than nonsurgical procedures. In the November 15, 2004 final rule (69 FR 66275), we discussed changes in those codes that would fall under the exception. Based on a recommendation by the RUC, we revised the list of codes to which this exception applies. The RUC’s PLI Workgroup requests that we correct a clerical error made by the RUC in identifying those codes that would fall under the exception. We agree with the RUC PLI Workgroup recommendation and propose that the following CPT
- Page 49 and 50: The following discussion outlines t
- Page 51 and 52: exist, and suggests that the need f
- Page 53 and 54: TABLE 14--Practice Expense Per Hour
- Page 55 and 56: We believe that we have consistentl
- Page 57 and 58: Due to the ongoing refinement by th
- Page 59 and 60: indirect PE methodology is inaccura
- Page 61 and 62: multi-specialty PEAC that were base
- Page 63 and 64: the needed survey or other data or
- Page 65 and 66: PERC/RUC recommendations for these
- Page 67 and 68: eflect the typical number of cast c
- Page 69 and 70: on comments received and additional
- Page 71 and 72: We have reviewed the PE database an
- Page 73 and 74: the ACR. We have accepted the follo
- Page 75 and 76: ● Clinical Labor for G-codes Rela
- Page 77 and 78: proposed associated prices that we
- Page 79 and 80: Supply Code Supply Description Unit
- Page 81 and 82: ● Supply and Equipment Items Need
- Page 83 and 84: Code 2005 Description Unit Unit Pri
- Page 85 and 86: Code 2005 Description Price EQ212 p
- Page 87 and 88: Effective January 1, 2006, this pro
- Page 89 and 90: challenge the validity of a new loc
- Page 91 and 92: ones reconfigured). Yet we also rec
- Page 93 and 94: The issue of payment locality desig
- Page 95 and 96: specialties listed infrequently as
- Page 97 and 98: for premium rating purposes. ISO co
- Page 99: psychology to the nonsurgical risk
- Page 103 and 104: 103 However, as noted previously in
- Page 105 and 106: ● Category #1: Services that are
- Page 107 and 108: G0270, G0271 and 97802 through 9780
- Page 109 and 110: Group Medical Nutritional Therapy (
- Page 111 and 112: 111 furnished in the group setting
- Page 113 and 114: CMS Review 113 As noted previously,
- Page 115 and 116: system that permits the physician a
- Page 117 and 118: 117 associated with the provided se
- Page 119 and 120: 119 overlapping surgeries, the teac
- Page 121 and 122: anesthesia programs that have arran
- Page 123 and 124: 123 Section 623 of the MMA also req
- Page 125 and 126: 125 hospital-based facilities; whil
- Page 127 and 128: 127 The next step would be to devel
- Page 129 and 130: Drugs Second Quarter ASP +6 Percent
- Page 131 and 132: 131 independent facilities, to acco
- Page 133 and 134: 133
- Page 135 and 136: distributed this over a total proje
- Page 137 and 138: 137 additional 0.7 percent addition
- Page 139 and 140: 139 billed drugs regardless of sett
- Page 141 and 142: 141 than 0.9000 are paid more than
- Page 143 and 144: adoption of the new hospital wage i
- Page 145 and 146: of geographic designations for purp
- Page 147 and 148: and they may or may not be suitable
- Page 149 and 150: the Medicare Geographic Classificat
Therefore, we propose assigning these specialties a risk<br />
100<br />
factor <strong>of</strong> 1.00. We invite comment from representatives <strong>of</strong><br />
the affected specialties and others regarding the<br />
appropriateness <strong>of</strong> this proposal, as well as other specialty<br />
crosswalks and suggestions for reliable sources <strong>of</strong> actual<br />
malpractice premium data for nonphysician groups.<br />
The RUC PLI Workgroup also felt that a number <strong>of</strong><br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essions that were assigned to the average for all<br />
physicians risk factor should be removed from the<br />
calculation <strong>of</strong> malpractice RVUs altogether. The PLI<br />
Workgroup believes that it would be more appropriate to<br />
exclude data from the following pr<strong>of</strong>essions: certified<br />
clinical nurse specialist (CNS), clinical laboratory,<br />
multispecialty clinic or group practice, NP, physician<br />
assistant (PA), and physiological laboratory (independent).<br />
In calculating the malpractice RVUs applicable for 2005, 34<br />
Medicare specialties were excluded from the calculation<br />
because they could not be otherwise assigned or crosswalked.<br />
The RUC recommends the above specialties and pr<strong>of</strong>essions be<br />
similarly excluded. We agree and propose to establish<br />
malpractice RVUs based upon the mix <strong>of</strong> specialties exclusive<br />
<strong>of</strong> the above specialties and pr<strong>of</strong>essions.<br />
The PLI Workgroup also made the following<br />
recommendations that we are not accepting: certified<br />
registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) should be crosswalked