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
290 glaucoma; or (iii) African-Americans age 50 and over. Based on our review of the current medical literature, we believe that there are other beneficiaries who are at risk for glaucoma and should be included in the definition of eligible beneficiary for purposes of the glaucoma screening benefit. The Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group recently reviewed the literature on the prevalence of glaucoma in adults in the United States (Arch Ophthalmol 2004; 122:532-538) and provided separate data for Hispanic persons. They reported that Hispanic subjects had a marked higher prevalence in the oldest age group. After controlling for age and gender, rates of open angle glaucoma in Hispanic persons did not differ significantly from that among whites, except for those age 65 years and older. The prevalence of open angle glaucoma in Hispanic persons age 65 years and older was significantly higher than among whites. Overall, Hispanic subjects had a significantly lower prevalence of open angle glaucoma than African-Americans. One notable limitation of this review article is that the data on Hispanic persons came from a single study of mostly Mexican-born Hispanics from Arizona (Quigley HA et al. The prevalence of glaucoma in a population based study of Hispanic subjects: proyecto VER. Ann Ophthalmol 2001; 119:1819-1825). We believe the evidence is adequate to
291 conclude that Hispanic persons age 65 and older are at high risk and could benefit from glaucoma screening. Therefore in §410.23(a)(2), we are proposing to revise the definition of an eligible beneficiary to include Hispanic Americans age 65 and over. If this proposal is adopted in the final rule, effective January 1, 2006, Hispanic Americans age 65 and older would qualify for Medicare coverage and payment for glaucoma screening services, if the applicable condition and limitations on coverage of screening for glaucoma specified in §410.23(b) and (c) are met. In view of the possibility that it may be appropriate to include other individuals in the statutory definition of those at “high risk” for glaucoma, we are requesting comments on this issue. Specifically, we request that anyone providing us with specific recommendations on this issue provide documentation in support of them from the peer-reviewed medical literature. P. Physician Referrals for Nuclear Medicine Services and Supplies to Health Care Entities with Which They Have Financial Relationships [If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “NUCLEAR MEDICINE SERVICES” at the beginning of your comments”.] 1. Background
- Page 239 and 240: 239 We believe the weighted average
- Page 241 and 242: number of 11-digit NDCs sold for ea
- Page 243 and 244: 243 included in the template, it is
- Page 245 and 246: current reporting format is an appr
- Page 247 and 248: 247 section 1847A of the Act for th
- Page 249 and 250: each quarter at the following web s
- Page 251 and 252: 251 We also note MedPAC’s recomme
- Page 253 and 254: costs and units. We seek comments a
- Page 255 and 256: 255 pays for DME and associated sup
- Page 257 and 258: pharmacy activities required to get
- Page 259 and 260: 259 representing 42 percent of the
- Page 261 and 262: 261 basic pharmacy services such as
- Page 263 and 264: seek comment on the potential impac
- Page 265 and 266: 265 overpaying for the costs associ
- Page 267 and 268: 267 and information about how pharm
- Page 269 and 270: 269 takes good faith efforts to res
- Page 271 and 272: 271 Specifically, we consider that
- Page 273 and 274: supplies. Using billing data, we id
- Page 275 and 276: 70481 CT orbit/ear/fossa w/ dye 704
- Page 277 and 278: K. Therapy Cap 73223 MRI joint uppe
- Page 279 and 280: provided for an active subluxation
- Page 281 and 282: is less than 2 percent of spending
- Page 283 and 284: (2) entities determined by the Secr
- Page 285 and 286: 285 We are proposing a supplemental
- Page 287 and 288: FQHC claim form to effectuate the b
- Page 289: 289 can issue a final determination
- Page 293 and 294: 293 nuclear medicine services in ei
- Page 295 and 296: adiopharmaceuticals. In the final r
- Page 297 and 298: 297 (including Nuclear Medicine and
- Page 299 and 300: we would resolve any doubt on the m
- Page 301 and 302: facility payment rather than a TC c
- Page 303 and 304: ventures and leases, pose a risk of
- Page 305 and 306: 305 Underlying the projected rate r
- Page 307 and 308: decisions are central to the health
- Page 309 and 310: however. We are particularly intere
- Page 311 and 312: The collection requirement in this
- Page 313 and 314: eporting requirements are discussed
- Page 315 and 316: IV. Response to Comments Because of
- Page 317 and 318: achieve the objectives with less si
- Page 319 and 320: 319 The analysis and discussion pro
- Page 321 and 322: 321 for a new code may change becau
- Page 323 and 324: 323 TABLE 30--Impact of Practice Ex
- Page 325 and 326: hour for these specialties. As note
- Page 327 and 328: Both physical/occupational therapy
- Page 329 and 330: 329 proposing to add cardiology cat
- Page 331 and 332: Speciality Impact of Removing Aberr
- Page 333 and 334: Family TABLE 32--Impact of Multiple
- Page 335 and 336: 335 column includes the current est
- Page 337 and 338: Specialty Medicare Allowed Charges
- Page 339 and 340: 339 Non-Facility Facility % % HCPCS
290<br />
glaucoma; or (iii) African-<strong>American</strong>s age 50 and over. Based<br />
on our review <strong>of</strong> the current medical literature, we believe<br />
that there are other beneficiaries who are at risk for<br />
glaucoma and should be included in the definition <strong>of</strong><br />
eligible beneficiary for purposes <strong>of</strong> the glaucoma screening<br />
benefit.<br />
The Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group recently<br />
reviewed the literature on the prevalence <strong>of</strong> glaucoma in<br />
adults in the United States (Arch Ophthalmol 2004;<br />
122:532-538) and provided separate data for Hispanic<br />
persons. They reported that Hispanic subjects had a marked<br />
higher prevalence in the oldest age group. After<br />
controlling for age and gender, rates <strong>of</strong> open angle glaucoma<br />
in Hispanic persons did not differ significantly from that<br />
among whites, except for those age 65 years and older. The<br />
prevalence <strong>of</strong> open angle glaucoma in Hispanic persons age 65<br />
years and older was significantly higher than among whites.<br />
Overall, Hispanic subjects had a significantly lower<br />
prevalence <strong>of</strong> open angle glaucoma than African-<strong>American</strong>s.<br />
One notable limitation <strong>of</strong> this review article is that the<br />
data on Hispanic persons came from a single study <strong>of</strong> mostly<br />
Mexican-born Hispanics from Arizona (Quigley HA et al. The<br />
prevalence <strong>of</strong> glaucoma in a population based study <strong>of</strong><br />
Hispanic subjects: proyecto VER. Ann Ophthalmol 2001;<br />
119:1819-1825). We believe the evidence is adequate to